Should churches push contraceptives to their singles?

An evangelical conclave has recommended that churches encourage their single members to take contraceptives as a way to cut down on Christians getting abortions:

Two weeks ago, younger evangelical leaders gathered in Washington D.C. to reflect about the shape Christianity should take in the world. Q, the conference hosted by Gabe Lyons, is one of the more interesting spots in the evangelical landscape. Self-conscious in its cultural (which is to say, not political) orientation, conference attendees are an interesting cross-section of the evangelical world. Some might be emergent, others might be Reformed, but no one talks much about all that. It’s concern about social issues, rather than distinctive theological ones, that attendees seem to gather around.

In a breathtaking moment of unity, however, conference attendees affirmed that churches should advocate for contraceptives for the single people in their midst. After a panel discussion on the best ways to reduce abortions in the church (tacit answer: contraception), an instant poll put the question to attendees: “Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” The question is ambiguously worded (Advocate how? From the pulpit? Which twentysomethings? All of them?). But even so, 70 percent of respondents understood enough to say “yes.”

via Why Churches Shouldn’t Push Contraceptives to Their Singles | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

So if churches can’t influence their members enough to teach them to not have sex or, failing that, to not have abortions, why do they think they can influence them to use contraceptives?  That is for starters.  How else is this problematic?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    “How else is this problematic?”

    It’s problematic because abortion is the front man for people who believe that the women’s liberation revolution and the sexual revolution of the 1960s were bad ideas. If we’re really concerned about fetal death, then we should advocate spending far more medical research on zygotes, since the natural miscarriage rate is sky high. If these pastors are really advocating birth control, you can almost make a sure bet that they have pro-choice sympathies.

    If you love birth control, but think abortion should be outlawed, speak up. ::crickets::

    Bottom line: If you prevent abortion in a way that doesn’t get women back in the home and into traditional marriage, you’ve completely missed the point of opposing abortion in the first place.

  • Michael B.

    “How else is this problematic?”

    It’s problematic because abortion is the front man for people who believe that the women’s liberation revolution and the sexual revolution of the 1960s were bad ideas. If we’re really concerned about fetal death, then we should advocate spending far more medical research on zygotes, since the natural miscarriage rate is sky high. If these pastors are really advocating birth control, you can almost make a sure bet that they have pro-choice sympathies.

    If you love birth control, but think abortion should be outlawed, speak up. ::crickets::

    Bottom line: If you prevent abortion in a way that doesn’t get women back in the home and into traditional marriage, you’ve completely missed the point of opposing abortion in the first place.

  • Pete

      “At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

     11 “No one, sir,” she said.

       “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and get yourself a good, effective contraceptive.”

  • Pete

      “At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

     11 “No one, sir,” she said.

       “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and get yourself a good, effective contraceptive.”

  • Dan Kempin

    Michael #1,

    “. . . for people who believe that . . . the sexual revolution of the 1960s [was a] bad idea.”

    Apparently not, if they are supporting birth control to stop abortion.

  • Dan Kempin

    Michael #1,

    “. . . for people who believe that . . . the sexual revolution of the 1960s [was a] bad idea.”

    Apparently not, if they are supporting birth control to stop abortion.

  • Booklover

    I can’t come up with a better response than Pete’s.

    It’s all enough to drive me Catholic.

  • Booklover

    I can’t come up with a better response than Pete’s.

    It’s all enough to drive me Catholic.

  • TE Schroeder

    This appears to be a group of people who have quit calling sin what it is and, therefore, calling people to repent. The goal is now to do whatever we can to not have to deal with the messy consequences of sin. No confession and absolution here, just keeping up the appearances of chastity when it has been conceded that none exists.

    It is not only problematic; it is shameful — giving the impression that adultery and fornication have divine approval.

  • TE Schroeder

    This appears to be a group of people who have quit calling sin what it is and, therefore, calling people to repent. The goal is now to do whatever we can to not have to deal with the messy consequences of sin. No confession and absolution here, just keeping up the appearances of chastity when it has been conceded that none exists.

    It is not only problematic; it is shameful — giving the impression that adultery and fornication have divine approval.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    ‘Expose…and forgive’.

    This is what the church ought be doing.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    ‘Expose…and forgive’.

    This is what the church ought be doing.

  • Jack

    Why limit advocating contraceptives to only the twenty something singles? Why not advocate the use of contraceptives to those who may be involved in extramarital “affairs”? How about doing so during instruction to children during studies of the sixth commandment?

  • Jack

    Why limit advocating contraceptives to only the twenty something singles? Why not advocate the use of contraceptives to those who may be involved in extramarital “affairs”? How about doing so during instruction to children during studies of the sixth commandment?

  • Cincinnatus

    I would just like to say that Michael B. has really outdone himself this time: so much ignorance, so much bigotry, so much stupidity in one little comment!

  • Cincinnatus

    I would just like to say that Michael B. has really outdone himself this time: so much ignorance, so much bigotry, so much stupidity in one little comment!

  • Morgan

    @ TE #5
    +1000.

    Couldn’t have put it better. Avoiding consequences, keeping up appearances. It’s all about creating a delicate veneer of Godliness, holiness, righteousness.

    Why even bother?

  • Morgan

    @ TE #5
    +1000.

    Couldn’t have put it better. Avoiding consequences, keeping up appearances. It’s all about creating a delicate veneer of Godliness, holiness, righteousness.

    Why even bother?

  • Patrick Kyle

    Our culture is completely adrift and the church reflects that
    ‘Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.’
    ‘If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness.’

  • Patrick Kyle

    Our culture is completely adrift and the church reflects that
    ‘Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.’
    ‘If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness.’

  • Mockingbird

    I would guess that among those advocating this, none would say that extra-marital sex is okay; they would just call it the lesser of two evils. Sex outside of marriage is bad, but it is *really bad* to have an abortion. Ergo, promoting the use of contraceptives will address the really bad sin and leave us with only the bad one to worry about.

    This also answers Dr Veith’s question about how churches would be able to influence people to do this. You don’t need to influence them; they’re already on board with this. I want to have sex with my girlfriend, but I know abortion is wrong. Thus I am happy to follow my church’s directive to use a contraceptive since it allows me to pursue this selfish, sinful desire. There hasn’t been such a welcome directive since someone came up with the idea of temple prostitutes.

  • Mockingbird

    I would guess that among those advocating this, none would say that extra-marital sex is okay; they would just call it the lesser of two evils. Sex outside of marriage is bad, but it is *really bad* to have an abortion. Ergo, promoting the use of contraceptives will address the really bad sin and leave us with only the bad one to worry about.

    This also answers Dr Veith’s question about how churches would be able to influence people to do this. You don’t need to influence them; they’re already on board with this. I want to have sex with my girlfriend, but I know abortion is wrong. Thus I am happy to follow my church’s directive to use a contraceptive since it allows me to pursue this selfish, sinful desire. There hasn’t been such a welcome directive since someone came up with the idea of temple prostitutes.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The answer is simple, “no!”

    The conference is the logical extension of the flawed youth ministry formula we commented on earlier this week. They see the church as behavior modification rather than a place for injured souls to receive the gift of the Gospel.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The answer is simple, “no!”

    The conference is the logical extension of the flawed youth ministry formula we commented on earlier this week. They see the church as behavior modification rather than a place for injured souls to receive the gift of the Gospel.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Spell checkers for plagiarists?

    But kidding aside, why bother having such a church when it merely expresses the common spirit? What not just watch sit-coms?

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Spell checkers for plagiarists?

    But kidding aside, why bother having such a church when it merely expresses the common spirit? What not just watch sit-coms?

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    As a thirty-something, I feel discriminated against.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    As a thirty-something, I feel discriminated against.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It doesn’t even meet the utilitarian definition of a good idea.

    Contraception fails.

    Got that? If not check out Guttmacher Institute stats:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    Young people have higher failure rates because they are more fertile and have sex more often.

    More singles using contraception = more abortion.

    But why? It seems it would go the other way. Yes, it does, but using the scientific method of testing our hypothesis, we discover what really happens when you push contraceptives to singles. They increase their sexual activity which increases the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

    This is the contraceptive message in our culture:

    Sterile recreational sex = good

    Baby-making sex = bad

    Women at home with kids = bad

    Women doing make work outside the home = good

    Churches pushing contraceptives are just the blind leading the blind.

    They are basically saying it is okay to break one commandment but not another. They are not teaching the law. So, they are teaching people not to repent.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It doesn’t even meet the utilitarian definition of a good idea.

    Contraception fails.

    Got that? If not check out Guttmacher Institute stats:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    Young people have higher failure rates because they are more fertile and have sex more often.

    More singles using contraception = more abortion.

    But why? It seems it would go the other way. Yes, it does, but using the scientific method of testing our hypothesis, we discover what really happens when you push contraceptives to singles. They increase their sexual activity which increases the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

    This is the contraceptive message in our culture:

    Sterile recreational sex = good

    Baby-making sex = bad

    Women at home with kids = bad

    Women doing make work outside the home = good

    Churches pushing contraceptives are just the blind leading the blind.

    They are basically saying it is okay to break one commandment but not another. They are not teaching the law. So, they are teaching people not to repent.

  • Jon

    What’s the LCMS view on birth control? Is it ever right? Ever wrong? Always left to conscience?

  • Jon

    What’s the LCMS view on birth control? Is it ever right? Ever wrong? Always left to conscience?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Along with Pete’s brilliant comment, the thought comes to me that if we encourage single people to simply protect themselves instead of repenting, we’re not only encouraging fornication (bad), we’re denying the power of the Gospel by diverting peoples attention from repentance (worse), and finally, since our Lord describes Himself as the Betrothed of the Church, aiding and abetting fornication models Christ as playing the field (‘oy vay!).

    And in a far more minor issue that sg gets to, contraceptives can and do fail to both prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. So if my pastor tacitly aids and abets my fornication, and I come out with both a child and a gift that keeps on giving, do I get to sue him for not warning me? What about when I decide to play the field with someone who has lost her marbles, and I end up stalked and injured?

    But that said, compared to the damage it does to the Gospel and the blasphemy it perpetrates upon our Lord, that’s a minor issue.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Along with Pete’s brilliant comment, the thought comes to me that if we encourage single people to simply protect themselves instead of repenting, we’re not only encouraging fornication (bad), we’re denying the power of the Gospel by diverting peoples attention from repentance (worse), and finally, since our Lord describes Himself as the Betrothed of the Church, aiding and abetting fornication models Christ as playing the field (‘oy vay!).

    And in a far more minor issue that sg gets to, contraceptives can and do fail to both prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. So if my pastor tacitly aids and abets my fornication, and I come out with both a child and a gift that keeps on giving, do I get to sue him for not warning me? What about when I decide to play the field with someone who has lost her marbles, and I end up stalked and injured?

    But that said, compared to the damage it does to the Gospel and the blasphemy it perpetrates upon our Lord, that’s a minor issue.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But that said, compared to the damage it does to the Gospel and the blasphemy it perpetrates upon our Lord, that’s a minor issue.”

    Exactly.

    It fails at every level from profound to banal.

    It calls God a liar.

    It defiles the Church.

    It harms the neighbor.

    And it lacks even basic utility!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But that said, compared to the damage it does to the Gospel and the blasphemy it perpetrates upon our Lord, that’s a minor issue.”

    Exactly.

    It fails at every level from profound to banal.

    It calls God a liar.

    It defiles the Church.

    It harms the neighbor.

    And it lacks even basic utility!

  • DonS

    Back to the post — the Christianity Today article Dr. Veith referenced states the question posed to Q Conference attendees as ““Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” However, the only source for this question I can find on the Internet is from Adele M. Banks, writing for Religion News Service (RNS). RNS is quoted by numerous aggregators, such as the Huffington Post and the Christian Century (linked here):
    http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-04/evangelicals-say-its-time-frank-talk-about-sex

    Ms. Banks states the question as follows: “At this month’s Q conference in Washington, participants were asked at the end of a session on “reducing abortion” if churches should support the use of contraception among their single 20-somethings. Responding by text message, 64 percent said yes, 36 percent said no”

    “Support” and “advocate” are two very different words. I can see “supporting” contraception for a wayward and unrepentant Christian who is insistent on engaging in unmarried sex, for the sake of the baby. I can’t see “advocating” it. I would “advocate” repentance.

    By the way, I knew nothing about “Q” before today, and my review of their website, but I’m not particularly impressed.

  • DonS

    Back to the post — the Christianity Today article Dr. Veith referenced states the question posed to Q Conference attendees as ““Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” However, the only source for this question I can find on the Internet is from Adele M. Banks, writing for Religion News Service (RNS). RNS is quoted by numerous aggregators, such as the Huffington Post and the Christian Century (linked here):
    http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-04/evangelicals-say-its-time-frank-talk-about-sex

    Ms. Banks states the question as follows: “At this month’s Q conference in Washington, participants were asked at the end of a session on “reducing abortion” if churches should support the use of contraception among their single 20-somethings. Responding by text message, 64 percent said yes, 36 percent said no”

    “Support” and “advocate” are two very different words. I can see “supporting” contraception for a wayward and unrepentant Christian who is insistent on engaging in unmarried sex, for the sake of the baby. I can’t see “advocating” it. I would “advocate” repentance.

    By the way, I knew nothing about “Q” before today, and my review of their website, but I’m not particularly impressed.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Jon, I don’t think we have adopted an official stance, but what exists one could call nuanced, or one could also call it schizophrenic. We acknowledge that there are legitimate medical reasons for a married couple to use birth-control, so one should not put a burden on a married couple for using birth-control outside of limiting use to non-abortifaciant forms. At the same time, married couples should not be encouraged to use birth-control as a primary function and purpose of marriage is procreation.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Jon, I don’t think we have adopted an official stance, but what exists one could call nuanced, or one could also call it schizophrenic. We acknowledge that there are legitimate medical reasons for a married couple to use birth-control, so one should not put a burden on a married couple for using birth-control outside of limiting use to non-abortifaciant forms. At the same time, married couples should not be encouraged to use birth-control as a primary function and purpose of marriage is procreation.

  • Jon

    @20 Dr. L, thanks very much for that.
    But if there is no official stance, then on what do you base the “nuanced” position you describe? Is it your view alone?

  • Jon

    @20 Dr. L, thanks very much for that.
    But if there is no official stance, then on what do you base the “nuanced” position you describe? Is it your view alone?

  • Gary

    Jon, it is certainly not Dr. L’s view alone; many agree with this view. However, when he states, “a primary function and purpose of marriage is procreation,” he is stating his private opinion.

    The LC-MS has no official stance on the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives, which Dr. L acknowledged. I think the schizophrenic characteristic alluded to is best explained as disagreement over whether there should be an official stance. My own position is there should not be.

  • Gary

    Jon, it is certainly not Dr. L’s view alone; many agree with this view. However, when he states, “a primary function and purpose of marriage is procreation,” he is stating his private opinion.

    The LC-MS has no official stance on the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives, which Dr. L acknowledged. I think the schizophrenic characteristic alluded to is best explained as disagreement over whether there should be an official stance. My own position is there should not be.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Should churches push contraceptives to their singles?

    No.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Should churches push contraceptives to their singles?

    No.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Gary, I would suggest you read the Rite of Holy Matrimony in the Lutheran Service Book and the CTCR report Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective. Procreation as a primary function and purpose of marriage is not a personal opinion.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Gary, I would suggest you read the Rite of Holy Matrimony in the Lutheran Service Book and the CTCR report Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective. Procreation as a primary function and purpose of marriage is not a personal opinion.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Jon, on two things, the discussions of theologians who deal with bioethics and the statement President Harrison made before congress.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Jon, on two things, the discussions of theologians who deal with bioethics and the statement President Harrison made before congress.

  • Jon

    @Gary, Dr. L, thank for that.

    I understand procreation as “the” primary purpose of marriage (but doesn’t that assume the couple wants and can have children?), but not as “a” primary purpose. Primacy allows but one purpose, not one of many others. A better question might be: For what purposes, if any, does the LCMS allow the use of birth control? It sounds like it still comes down to conscience.

  • Jon

    @Gary, Dr. L, thank for that.

    I understand procreation as “the” primary purpose of marriage (but doesn’t that assume the couple wants and can have children?), but not as “a” primary purpose. Primacy allows but one purpose, not one of many others. A better question might be: For what purposes, if any, does the LCMS allow the use of birth control? It sounds like it still comes down to conscience.

  • Joe

    Some how this topic makes me think of this scene from Scrubs:

  • Joe

    Some how this topic makes me think of this scene from Scrubs:

  • Grace

    Agreeing to “contraceptives” within the church, is nothing less then giving them a way to sin, without complications.

    Many such “contraceptives” are linked with abortion – so then the church, can tangle with that nasty bloody act.

    There is no way to sin and side-step it’s results. The conscience, if one still has it, will haunt them.

  • Grace

    Agreeing to “contraceptives” within the church, is nothing less then giving them a way to sin, without complications.

    Many such “contraceptives” are linked with abortion – so then the church, can tangle with that nasty bloody act.

    There is no way to sin and side-step it’s results. The conscience, if one still has it, will haunt them.

  • Michael B.

    But isn’t abortion murdering people? Shouldn’t things like extramarital sex pale in comparison to murder?

  • Michael B.

    But isn’t abortion murdering people? Shouldn’t things like extramarital sex pale in comparison to murder?

  • Grace

    Michael,

    Contraceptives (many of them) are tools of abortion. It just aborts before the process gets a good start – to put it bluntly.

    Those who approve of contraceptives (health providers) know that the hormones, etc., cause a defense, but it doesn’t always work.

    Sin can’t be made into a frosting, to cover the problem of sex before marriage, it doesn’t work.

  • Grace

    Michael,

    Contraceptives (many of them) are tools of abortion. It just aborts before the process gets a good start – to put it bluntly.

    Those who approve of contraceptives (health providers) know that the hormones, etc., cause a defense, but it doesn’t always work.

    Sin can’t be made into a frosting, to cover the problem of sex before marriage, it doesn’t work.

  • jonathan

    @ Grace. Rubbers?

  • jonathan

    @ Grace. Rubbers?

  • Grace

    jonathan

    That’s one way of sinning, and hoping not to get caught, but the sin still exists. Condoms don’t always keep sexual partners from getting STD’s such as herpes, which if they are exposed most likely will have it, and it’s a life long, painful situation.

    Who would want to marry someone with that disease?

  • Grace

    jonathan

    That’s one way of sinning, and hoping not to get caught, but the sin still exists. Condoms don’t always keep sexual partners from getting STD’s such as herpes, which if they are exposed most likely will have it, and it’s a life long, painful situation.

    Who would want to marry someone with that disease?

  • Anon.

    Yeah, you don’t want to marry or sleep with someone who’s friends with one of the “Rhea” brothers. Especially gono…

    LOLROTF

  • Anon.

    Yeah, you don’t want to marry or sleep with someone who’s friends with one of the “Rhea” brothers. Especially gono…

    LOLROTF

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “disagreement over whether there should be an official stance”

    Interesting distinction here.

    For 1900 years, the church had an official stance against contraception.

    That official position did not make contraception an unforgivable sin, however, it did call people to repent if in fact they did use it. People are in danger when the church tells they are not sinning when in fact they are.

    If you haven’t read it, please consider the teachings in Humanae Vitae:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

    It is extremely difficult to and trust God in all things.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “disagreement over whether there should be an official stance”

    Interesting distinction here.

    For 1900 years, the church had an official stance against contraception.

    That official position did not make contraception an unforgivable sin, however, it did call people to repent if in fact they did use it. People are in danger when the church tells they are not sinning when in fact they are.

    If you haven’t read it, please consider the teachings in Humanae Vitae:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

    It is extremely difficult to and trust God in all things.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But isn’t abortion murdering people? Shouldn’t things like extramarital sex pale in comparison to murder?”

    Uh, look at that statement. One of the problems with extramarital sex is that it leads to murder. The biological function of sex is to make people. So when you go about making people you don’t want, you have to do something about those people. Often times, it is murder. Always has been.

    So, no, it doesn’t pale in comparison because these aren’t two separate things. Rather the first causes the second.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But isn’t abortion murdering people? Shouldn’t things like extramarital sex pale in comparison to murder?”

    Uh, look at that statement. One of the problems with extramarital sex is that it leads to murder. The biological function of sex is to make people. So when you go about making people you don’t want, you have to do something about those people. Often times, it is murder. Always has been.

    So, no, it doesn’t pale in comparison because these aren’t two separate things. Rather the first causes the second.

  • Grace

    Below is information that should be read and understood. It’s not just birth control, it’s more than that. Sinning has results, that many parents and young people are not aware of, OR, they have chosen to believe “it could never happen to me”

    How many people have STIs?
    It is estimated that in the United States 19 million STI infections occur on a yearly basis.3 To put that in perspective, if we took everyone from the state of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, we would still be short 1.2 million people!4 And that’s only how many people are infected every year, not the people who were previously infected.

    For teenagers alone, approximately 1 in 4 sexually active teens contracts an STI every year.5

    Will they ever go away?
    It depends on the type of STI. Bacterial and parasitic infections, like Chlamydia, can be treated with oral antibiotics. Viral infections, such as Genital Herpes, HIV, or HPV cannot be cured.6

    Do condoms prevent getting one?
    Condoms can reduce the transmission of an STI, but they cannot prevent transmission fully. Remember, the only 100% way of preventing a sexually transmitted infection is through abstinence.

    What about specific STIs?
    If you are looking for information about specific STIs, please follow the links listed below.

    Chlamydia: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
    Genital HPV: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
    Genital Herpes: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm
    Gonorrhea: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm
    Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: http://www.cdc.gov/std/PID/STDFact-PID.htm
    STD during Pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/std/STDFact-STDs&Pregnancy.htm
    Syphilis: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm

  • Grace

    Below is information that should be read and understood. It’s not just birth control, it’s more than that. Sinning has results, that many parents and young people are not aware of, OR, they have chosen to believe “it could never happen to me”

    How many people have STIs?
    It is estimated that in the United States 19 million STI infections occur on a yearly basis.3 To put that in perspective, if we took everyone from the state of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, we would still be short 1.2 million people!4 And that’s only how many people are infected every year, not the people who were previously infected.

    For teenagers alone, approximately 1 in 4 sexually active teens contracts an STI every year.5

    Will they ever go away?
    It depends on the type of STI. Bacterial and parasitic infections, like Chlamydia, can be treated with oral antibiotics. Viral infections, such as Genital Herpes, HIV, or HPV cannot be cured.6

    Do condoms prevent getting one?
    Condoms can reduce the transmission of an STI, but they cannot prevent transmission fully. Remember, the only 100% way of preventing a sexually transmitted infection is through abstinence.

    What about specific STIs?
    If you are looking for information about specific STIs, please follow the links listed below.

    Chlamydia: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
    Genital HPV: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
    Genital Herpes: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm
    Gonorrhea: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm
    Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: http://www.cdc.gov/std/PID/STDFact-PID.htm
    STD during Pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/std/STDFact-STDs&Pregnancy.htm
    Syphilis: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm

  • Grace

    sg @38

    Right you are.

  • Grace

    sg @38

    Right you are.

  • Grace

    SOCIAL vs. THEOLOGICAL, or the main FOCUS, The Word of God.

    “It’s concern about social issues, rather than distinctive theological ones, that attendees seem to gather around.”

    Today’s world is ALL ABOUT social issues, it avoids “theological” issues because they don’t line up, when 70% who voted voted “YES”

    In a breathtaking moment of unity, however, conference attendees affirmed that churches should advocate for contraceptives for the single people in their midst. After a panel discussion on the best ways to reduce abortions in the church (tacit answer: contraception), an instant poll put the question to attendees: “Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” The question is ambiguously worded (Advocate how? From the pulpit? Which twentysomethings? All of them?). But even so, 70 percent of respondents understood enough to say “yes.”

    Here you go, it’s that “UNITY” movement that undermines what God decrees, but man demands, to the extent that 70 percent of those polled voted “yes” – what a group of Jello Jigglers, masquerading as ____________, one day they will stand before God and answer to HIM.

    “To suggest that abortion within our churches is a problem is to put it too mildly: it is a scandal, a travesty, a matter for repentance and mourning. And the same goes for the frequency of pre-marital sex among evangelical singles. They are both, as panel participant Jenell Williams Paris aptly pointed out in her opening remarks, symptoms of a stunted theological understanding of human sexuality. (Which raises the question, of course, of why the panel was devoted to addressing these symptoms rather than eliminating the disease).

    The so called “panel” is devoted to “unity” –

    The disease is sin, it’s always sin. If it isn’t repented of having faith in the LORD, sin will abound in their lives. People can turn from sin if they lean on the LORD, the problem is; they don’t, they put themselves in situations that often result in the very sin they know to avoid.

    Until churches proclaim the Gospel, (not the social variety OR those that serves their emotions and hormones) the congregants will wait for the next edict to announce that contraceptives have now been OK’d. The churches who proclaim this as a way to sin, will be held responsible. See Revelation and the seven churches.

  • Grace

    SOCIAL vs. THEOLOGICAL, or the main FOCUS, The Word of God.

    “It’s concern about social issues, rather than distinctive theological ones, that attendees seem to gather around.”

    Today’s world is ALL ABOUT social issues, it avoids “theological” issues because they don’t line up, when 70% who voted voted “YES”

    In a breathtaking moment of unity, however, conference attendees affirmed that churches should advocate for contraceptives for the single people in their midst. After a panel discussion on the best ways to reduce abortions in the church (tacit answer: contraception), an instant poll put the question to attendees: “Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single twentysomethings?” The question is ambiguously worded (Advocate how? From the pulpit? Which twentysomethings? All of them?). But even so, 70 percent of respondents understood enough to say “yes.”

    Here you go, it’s that “UNITY” movement that undermines what God decrees, but man demands, to the extent that 70 percent of those polled voted “yes” – what a group of Jello Jigglers, masquerading as ____________, one day they will stand before God and answer to HIM.

    “To suggest that abortion within our churches is a problem is to put it too mildly: it is a scandal, a travesty, a matter for repentance and mourning. And the same goes for the frequency of pre-marital sex among evangelical singles. They are both, as panel participant Jenell Williams Paris aptly pointed out in her opening remarks, symptoms of a stunted theological understanding of human sexuality. (Which raises the question, of course, of why the panel was devoted to addressing these symptoms rather than eliminating the disease).

    The so called “panel” is devoted to “unity” –

    The disease is sin, it’s always sin. If it isn’t repented of having faith in the LORD, sin will abound in their lives. People can turn from sin if they lean on the LORD, the problem is; they don’t, they put themselves in situations that often result in the very sin they know to avoid.

    Until churches proclaim the Gospel, (not the social variety OR those that serves their emotions and hormones) the congregants will wait for the next edict to announce that contraceptives have now been OK’d. The churches who proclaim this as a way to sin, will be held responsible. See Revelation and the seven churches.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I could be wrong on this, but isn’t this kinda like providing lockpicks to people while telling them they shouldn’t be breaking into homes?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I could be wrong on this, but isn’t this kinda like providing lockpicks to people while telling them they shouldn’t be breaking into homes?

  • Grace

    J. Dean

    Yes, you hit it. But at the same time, when they “break into” they can very likely get a “SHOCK” which might last a lifetime.

  • Grace

    J. Dean

    Yes, you hit it. But at the same time, when they “break into” they can very likely get a “SHOCK” which might last a lifetime.

  • Marie

    The following is one of the most thoughtful articles I have read on contraception, fornication, marriage and how it all affects the Body of Christ.

    “There is nothing safe about ‘safe sex’ besides an external reputation.”

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-013-v

  • Marie

    The following is one of the most thoughtful articles I have read on contraception, fornication, marriage and how it all affects the Body of Christ.

    “There is nothing safe about ‘safe sex’ besides an external reputation.”

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-013-v

  • Gary

    Marie,
    I followed the link and read most of the article. All I can say is, Wow! That is really weird. It expresses understandings of marriage, procreation, contraception and sexuality that Touchstone ought to seriously reconsider.

  • Gary

    Marie,
    I followed the link and read most of the article. All I can say is, Wow! That is really weird. It expresses understandings of marriage, procreation, contraception and sexuality that Touchstone ought to seriously reconsider.

  • Marie

    Gary, do elaborate with specifics! (And why did you stop reading at “most”?) Also, like most magazines, I’m sure Touchstone has a disclaimer (“…the articles published do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Touchstone staff or FSJ….” or some such statement). I have been reading Touchstone for 10 years, and they are consistently critical of the popular use of contraception (see many of Alan Carlson’s articles).

    I agree with you that the LCMS should not have an official stance regarding contraception. However, I do think pastors should educate their congregation much more than they do, and present all the arguments for and against contraception to their married and engaged couples (heck, why not bring it up in confirmation…?) It is quite strange that in two generations the topic became amoral (as in without morality–filed completely under “Christian liberty,” a non-issue).

  • Marie

    Gary, do elaborate with specifics! (And why did you stop reading at “most”?) Also, like most magazines, I’m sure Touchstone has a disclaimer (“…the articles published do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Touchstone staff or FSJ….” or some such statement). I have been reading Touchstone for 10 years, and they are consistently critical of the popular use of contraception (see many of Alan Carlson’s articles).

    I agree with you that the LCMS should not have an official stance regarding contraception. However, I do think pastors should educate their congregation much more than they do, and present all the arguments for and against contraception to their married and engaged couples (heck, why not bring it up in confirmation…?) It is quite strange that in two generations the topic became amoral (as in without morality–filed completely under “Christian liberty,” a non-issue).

  • formerly just steve

    Grace,

    No worries. If you want to use birth control, you should have every right to use one of the brands of hormone-based contraceptives brought to you by Big Pharma. Or condoms, if you prefer, brought to you by Big Pharma. If you don’t wan to use birth control and would rather take your chances, if biology fails you (or succeeds, as it were), you can always use the Morning After pill, brought to you by Big Pharma. If you wait too long you will, unfortunately have to see a doctor to remedy the… er… medical situation. But still no worries as he will use many products in the course of the “procedure”, all brought to you by Big Pharma.

    So when the Left comes and tells you all about those nasty Big Pharma fat cats and their huge bonuses, ask them why they’re not promoting abstinence. “No drugs required!”

  • formerly just steve

    Grace,

    No worries. If you want to use birth control, you should have every right to use one of the brands of hormone-based contraceptives brought to you by Big Pharma. Or condoms, if you prefer, brought to you by Big Pharma. If you don’t wan to use birth control and would rather take your chances, if biology fails you (or succeeds, as it were), you can always use the Morning After pill, brought to you by Big Pharma. If you wait too long you will, unfortunately have to see a doctor to remedy the… er… medical situation. But still no worries as he will use many products in the course of the “procedure”, all brought to you by Big Pharma.

    So when the Left comes and tells you all about those nasty Big Pharma fat cats and their huge bonuses, ask them why they’re not promoting abstinence. “No drugs required!”

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 44

    This isn’t about so called “fat cats” or “big pharma” – it’s a moral issue, one that is opposed to the Word of God.

    YOU WROTE: “So when the Left comes and tells you all about those nasty Big Pharma fat cats and their huge bonuses, ask them why they’re not promoting abstinence. “No drugs required!”

    You still don’t get it – this isn’t about money and bonuses, it’s about medication that will result, all too often in a very early abortion. Whether or not it’s a money making scheme, isn’t of value, the value is in God’s plan. Abstinence is God’s plan, it has nothing to do with money.

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 44

    This isn’t about so called “fat cats” or “big pharma” – it’s a moral issue, one that is opposed to the Word of God.

    YOU WROTE: “So when the Left comes and tells you all about those nasty Big Pharma fat cats and their huge bonuses, ask them why they’re not promoting abstinence. “No drugs required!”

    You still don’t get it – this isn’t about money and bonuses, it’s about medication that will result, all too often in a very early abortion. Whether or not it’s a money making scheme, isn’t of value, the value is in God’s plan. Abstinence is God’s plan, it has nothing to do with money.

  • Grace

    The Christian couple “in trouble” faces more shame now from the Christian community than in ages past. With so many opportunities to conceal an illicit relationship or even an illicit pregnancy, those couples who must admit publicly to a sin considered private assume a largely avoidable humiliation. They’re concupiscent and stupid.

    .

    * That which is bolded is false. The so called “Christian community” you speak of, can hardly be found. How many churches have you visited lately? What do you see when you step inside the door? – a bunch of young people 17-28 or maybe older, who wear shorts, I mean short shorts, above their backside, tops that show their mid section and belly button, even in COLD WEATHER. OR, what do you hear, … oh, pardon me, if you can hear anything other than the loud drum beats, and all other instruments blowing and strumming as though one has hit the bar next to a university. This behavior didn’t exist 30 years ago, I should know, I lived/live in Southern CA.

    I haven’t witnessed one single humiliated anybody who finds themselves pregnant, inside or outside the church. The people who are embarrassed are their parents (sometimes)

    Christian parents are tempted to hope that if their kids mess up, they will at least be “safe” about it. The young have to be taught, with subtlety of course, that for everyone to remain happy, they must plan their sins and take measures to prevent these sins from coming to light. Veniality is far too risky.

    This might surprise you, but children today often, but not always emulate their parents. There is no such thing as “safe sex” – the only safety is abstinence, that means STD’s etc, of course most parents or their children NEVER think of that in the heat of passion. Parents and their children are ignorant if they think birth control, including condoms will solve the problems of STD’s and pregnancy. Even if that were true, (which it isn’t) it is CONTRARY to SCRIPTURE.

    “The people we seek to keep safe are ourselves. There is nothing safe about “safe sex” besides an external reputation. As long as no one knows, we can still participate in society’s grotesque nuptial parodies. Our daughters flounce down the aisle in ironic white gowns, naked from the cleavage up; our sons save for honeymoons on which the couple, drained by months of preparing for the exhibition of extravagance, can finally get some sleep. We smile about how our darlings waited—or if they didn’t, about how they at least were smart enough not to let it become a problem.

    Speak for YOURSELF – a so called “reputation” among ones friends is ZERO, it’s God ALMIGHTY who knows all. HE alone is the one who sees the sin, and like a good father, punishes and corrects the wayward.

    11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

    12 For whom the LORD loves he corrects; even as a father the son in whom he delights. Proverbs 3

    TAKE HEED!

    Do you think of God Almighty, do you think of the conscequences of sin? If you haven’t before now, pray about it, and ask God to help you.

  • Grace

    The Christian couple “in trouble” faces more shame now from the Christian community than in ages past. With so many opportunities to conceal an illicit relationship or even an illicit pregnancy, those couples who must admit publicly to a sin considered private assume a largely avoidable humiliation. They’re concupiscent and stupid.

    .

    * That which is bolded is false. The so called “Christian community” you speak of, can hardly be found. How many churches have you visited lately? What do you see when you step inside the door? – a bunch of young people 17-28 or maybe older, who wear shorts, I mean short shorts, above their backside, tops that show their mid section and belly button, even in COLD WEATHER. OR, what do you hear, … oh, pardon me, if you can hear anything other than the loud drum beats, and all other instruments blowing and strumming as though one has hit the bar next to a university. This behavior didn’t exist 30 years ago, I should know, I lived/live in Southern CA.

    I haven’t witnessed one single humiliated anybody who finds themselves pregnant, inside or outside the church. The people who are embarrassed are their parents (sometimes)

    Christian parents are tempted to hope that if their kids mess up, they will at least be “safe” about it. The young have to be taught, with subtlety of course, that for everyone to remain happy, they must plan their sins and take measures to prevent these sins from coming to light. Veniality is far too risky.

    This might surprise you, but children today often, but not always emulate their parents. There is no such thing as “safe sex” – the only safety is abstinence, that means STD’s etc, of course most parents or their children NEVER think of that in the heat of passion. Parents and their children are ignorant if they think birth control, including condoms will solve the problems of STD’s and pregnancy. Even if that were true, (which it isn’t) it is CONTRARY to SCRIPTURE.

    “The people we seek to keep safe are ourselves. There is nothing safe about “safe sex” besides an external reputation. As long as no one knows, we can still participate in society’s grotesque nuptial parodies. Our daughters flounce down the aisle in ironic white gowns, naked from the cleavage up; our sons save for honeymoons on which the couple, drained by months of preparing for the exhibition of extravagance, can finally get some sleep. We smile about how our darlings waited—or if they didn’t, about how they at least were smart enough not to let it become a problem.

    Speak for YOURSELF – a so called “reputation” among ones friends is ZERO, it’s God ALMIGHTY who knows all. HE alone is the one who sees the sin, and like a good father, punishes and corrects the wayward.

    11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

    12 For whom the LORD loves he corrects; even as a father the son in whom he delights. Proverbs 3

    TAKE HEED!

    Do you think of God Almighty, do you think of the conscequences of sin? If you haven’t before now, pray about it, and ask God to help you.

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, #45, I get it. I was simply pointing out certain hypocrisies.

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, #45, I get it. I was simply pointing out certain hypocrisies.

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 47

    I don’t give one dingle about “hypocrisies” among the “pharma” or bonuses for all those involved. I care deeply about those who follow the path of sin, who let their emotions and hormones rule their lives.

    The world doesn’t care about who are married, or who isn’t, that find themselves pregnant – or who have contracted (withouot anyone knowing) the worst STD’s that will haunt their lives till they die.

    Forget the money makers – they will always be with us. It’s the young people who’s lives are at stake, who choose to abort their infants, or involve themselves in sexual activities that result in SEXUAL DISEASE that cannot be cured, which result in a life long painful existence. But the worst part is, God knows, it’s a matter of reaching those who have believed for the past 20 – 30 years that sexual activity isn’t wrong. They see it everyday, if not on film, in newsprint regarding their fav actors, and those at the top of the social scene.

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 47

    I don’t give one dingle about “hypocrisies” among the “pharma” or bonuses for all those involved. I care deeply about those who follow the path of sin, who let their emotions and hormones rule their lives.

    The world doesn’t care about who are married, or who isn’t, that find themselves pregnant – or who have contracted (withouot anyone knowing) the worst STD’s that will haunt their lives till they die.

    Forget the money makers – they will always be with us. It’s the young people who’s lives are at stake, who choose to abort their infants, or involve themselves in sexual activities that result in SEXUAL DISEASE that cannot be cured, which result in a life long painful existence. But the worst part is, God knows, it’s a matter of reaching those who have believed for the past 20 – 30 years that sexual activity isn’t wrong. They see it everyday, if not on film, in newsprint regarding their fav actors, and those at the top of the social scene.

  • Marie

    Grace, I’m fairly certain you misunderstand that article (I did not write it, by the way). The author is saying, among other things, better your sins find you out (via a rather humiliating, yes shameful, pregnancy) than you die in them unrepentant.

    I’m not sure what you thought the article was arguing…

  • Marie

    Grace, I’m fairly certain you misunderstand that article (I did not write it, by the way). The author is saying, among other things, better your sins find you out (via a rather humiliating, yes shameful, pregnancy) than you die in them unrepentant.

    I’m not sure what you thought the article was arguing…

  • Grace

    Marie @ 49

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, I’m fairly certain you misunderstand that article (I did not write it, by the way).

    Please, it’s obvious you didn’t write it. The article clearly states who the author is, which is Rebekah Curtis. Do you think people don’t read, or comprehend what the author’s name is vs. the individual who posts on a blog, such as you?

    YOU WROTE: “I’m not sure what you thought the article was arguing…”

    If that’s true, then you did not read carefully what I wrote, responding to points in the article LINK you posted. The article was rather sophomoric in content, it didn’t reach down at the roots of the problem, which go much further than an unwanted pregnancy. I’ve worked in pro-life, talked to many who have had abortions. The world is much different than it was 20-30 years ago. Rebekah Curtis is naïve if she believes, as stated in the article.

    The portion below proves my point:

    The Christian couple “in trouble” faces more shame now from the Christian community than in ages past. With so many opportunities to conceal an illicit relationship or even an illicit pregnancy, those couples who must admit publicly to a sin considered private assume a largely avoidable humiliation. They’re concupiscent and stupid.

    My rebuttal below:

    “* That which is bolded is a false. The so called “Christian community” you speak of can hardly be found. How many churches have you visited lately? What do you see when you step inside the door? – a bunch of young people 17-28 or maybe older, who wear shorts, I mean short shorts, above their backside, tops that show their mid section and belly button, even in COLD WEATHER. OR, what do you hear, … oh, pardon me, if you can hear anything other than the loud drum beats, and all other instruments blowing and strumming as though one has hit the bar next to a university. This behavior didn’t exist 30 years ago, I should know, I lived/live in Southern CA.”

    Young women today are proud of the big bump, and so are those in the film industry or those who come from social families. This isn’t 1980 or 2000. You misunderstand the lack of moral standards, and shame, that was once shown 20-30 years ago.

    I suggest you read the article over again.

  • Grace

    Marie @ 49

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, I’m fairly certain you misunderstand that article (I did not write it, by the way).

    Please, it’s obvious you didn’t write it. The article clearly states who the author is, which is Rebekah Curtis. Do you think people don’t read, or comprehend what the author’s name is vs. the individual who posts on a blog, such as you?

    YOU WROTE: “I’m not sure what you thought the article was arguing…”

    If that’s true, then you did not read carefully what I wrote, responding to points in the article LINK you posted. The article was rather sophomoric in content, it didn’t reach down at the roots of the problem, which go much further than an unwanted pregnancy. I’ve worked in pro-life, talked to many who have had abortions. The world is much different than it was 20-30 years ago. Rebekah Curtis is naïve if she believes, as stated in the article.

    The portion below proves my point:

    The Christian couple “in trouble” faces more shame now from the Christian community than in ages past. With so many opportunities to conceal an illicit relationship or even an illicit pregnancy, those couples who must admit publicly to a sin considered private assume a largely avoidable humiliation. They’re concupiscent and stupid.

    My rebuttal below:

    “* That which is bolded is a false. The so called “Christian community” you speak of can hardly be found. How many churches have you visited lately? What do you see when you step inside the door? – a bunch of young people 17-28 or maybe older, who wear shorts, I mean short shorts, above their backside, tops that show their mid section and belly button, even in COLD WEATHER. OR, what do you hear, … oh, pardon me, if you can hear anything other than the loud drum beats, and all other instruments blowing and strumming as though one has hit the bar next to a university. This behavior didn’t exist 30 years ago, I should know, I lived/live in Southern CA.”

    Young women today are proud of the big bump, and so are those in the film industry or those who come from social families. This isn’t 1980 or 2000. You misunderstand the lack of moral standards, and shame, that was once shown 20-30 years ago.

    I suggest you read the article over again.

  • Grace

    Marie,

    Just for your information, and that of others who might not know how long “birth control pills” have been around – it’s over 50 years that’s a long time.

  • Grace

    Marie,

    Just for your information, and that of others who might not know how long “birth control pills” have been around – it’s over 50 years that’s a long time.

  • Marie

    Grace, please calm down. Contraception has been around for thousands of years (probably invented right after the oldest profession, amirite?)

    I only said I did not write the article because you used the second person (“you”) to argue against it.

    I understand now that you disagree with the argument that BC prevents the natural shame/consequences of extramarital sex (A BABY!), because you say no one has shame about that anymore. Is this correct? Because I can speak confidently that the author advocates (for normal, healthy married couples) no birth control whatsoever, even NFP. You DID misread and misunderstand the article when you addressed the “safe sex” and “reputation” parts.

    I often cringe at how harsh certain interlocutors on this blog can be with you. Men should not speak so strongly toward a lady, methinks. But I understand now their frustration, since your mixture of arrogance and ignorance is quite frustrating.

    I’m on your side–for real.

  • Marie

    Grace, please calm down. Contraception has been around for thousands of years (probably invented right after the oldest profession, amirite?)

    I only said I did not write the article because you used the second person (“you”) to argue against it.

    I understand now that you disagree with the argument that BC prevents the natural shame/consequences of extramarital sex (A BABY!), because you say no one has shame about that anymore. Is this correct? Because I can speak confidently that the author advocates (for normal, healthy married couples) no birth control whatsoever, even NFP. You DID misread and misunderstand the article when you addressed the “safe sex” and “reputation” parts.

    I often cringe at how harsh certain interlocutors on this blog can be with you. Men should not speak so strongly toward a lady, methinks. But I understand now their frustration, since your mixture of arrogance and ignorance is quite frustrating.

    I’m on your side–for real.

  • Morgan

    Sorry, ignorant low-church evangelical, here, with a question: Is the “official” position of most Lutherans anti-contraceptive, a’la conservative Catholics?

    And just as a critique, it seems silly for some of you to argue that “CONTRACEPTION DOESN’T EVEN WORK ALL THE TIME!”

    If you’re genuinely opposed to it, then fine. But 100% effectiveness has absolutely nothing to do with making that argument.

  • Morgan

    Sorry, ignorant low-church evangelical, here, with a question: Is the “official” position of most Lutherans anti-contraceptive, a’la conservative Catholics?

    And just as a critique, it seems silly for some of you to argue that “CONTRACEPTION DOESN’T EVEN WORK ALL THE TIME!”

    If you’re genuinely opposed to it, then fine. But 100% effectiveness has absolutely nothing to do with making that argument.

  • Mary Jack

    Morgan, the official position of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod is anti-abortion, whether that is surgical or chemical. But there is a resurgence within the Missouri Synod to be against the unnecessary use of birth control in that so much of birth control has contributed (intentionally or not) to abortion and sexual sin.

  • Mary Jack

    Morgan, the official position of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod is anti-abortion, whether that is surgical or chemical. But there is a resurgence within the Missouri Synod to be against the unnecessary use of birth control in that so much of birth control has contributed (intentionally or not) to abortion and sexual sin.

  • Marie

    “Is the ‘official’ position of most Lutherans anti-contraceptive, a’la conservative Catholics?”

    No, most Lutherans aren’t against (non-abortificient) contraception. Officially, though I think the last statement the LCMS made about the matter was to condemn Catholics for going soft (promoting NFP).

    “As late as 1923, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod’s official magazine The Witness accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime” and labeled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Pastor Walter Maier, founding preacher of the long-running Lutheran Hour radio program, called contraceptives “the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.”

    “During the 1930s, the Missouri Synod quietly dropped its campaign against the Birth Control League of America. In the 1940s, one of the church’s leading theologians, Albert Rehwinkel, concluded that Luther had simply been wrong. God’s words in Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”—were not a command; they were merely a blessing, and an optional one at that.”

    “Typical of a less radical development was the 1981 decision of the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations, which argued that although “Be fruitful” is “both a command and a mandate,” “in the absence of Scriptural prohibition” contraception was acceptable “within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” And if contraception is acceptable, “we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception.”

    More here
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

    Here’s a nice article about how the Protestants/Evangelicals were won over
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=24-01-039-f

    No matter your position, it’s a fascinating history

  • Marie

    “Is the ‘official’ position of most Lutherans anti-contraceptive, a’la conservative Catholics?”

    No, most Lutherans aren’t against (non-abortificient) contraception. Officially, though I think the last statement the LCMS made about the matter was to condemn Catholics for going soft (promoting NFP).

    “As late as 1923, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod’s official magazine The Witness accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime” and labeled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Pastor Walter Maier, founding preacher of the long-running Lutheran Hour radio program, called contraceptives “the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.”

    “During the 1930s, the Missouri Synod quietly dropped its campaign against the Birth Control League of America. In the 1940s, one of the church’s leading theologians, Albert Rehwinkel, concluded that Luther had simply been wrong. God’s words in Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”—were not a command; they were merely a blessing, and an optional one at that.”

    “Typical of a less radical development was the 1981 decision of the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations, which argued that although “Be fruitful” is “both a command and a mandate,” “in the absence of Scriptural prohibition” contraception was acceptable “within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” And if contraception is acceptable, “we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception.”

    More here
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

    Here’s a nice article about how the Protestants/Evangelicals were won over
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=24-01-039-f

    No matter your position, it’s a fascinating history

  • Morgan

    @ Mary Jack & Marie,
    Super helpful, thanks. I was really beginning to wonder, with some of the comments above. And yes, strictly talking about non-abortificient contraceptives.

    Again, thanks for the insight, you two.

  • Morgan

    @ Mary Jack & Marie,
    Super helpful, thanks. I was really beginning to wonder, with some of the comments above. And yes, strictly talking about non-abortificient contraceptives.

    Again, thanks for the insight, you two.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I think we can expect that experience and natural consequences will lead to Christianity coming around to the catholic position it held for 1,900 years that artificial contraception is sinful. Abstinence within marriage is okay, but not actual contraception. Two main reasons. Among Christians, those who want more children have more children rendering more family oriented people within the faith as those who are not so interested in family simply self annihilate. The other is that these family oriented people will come to dominate the clergy because, well, who else is there? They will come to outnumber those who love contraception. Contraception is inherently self-limiting as a preferred lifestyle. The very rare couple suffering from some condition that makes contraception the sanest choice, will likely adopt because they aren’t childless by choice. They will pass on those values to their adopted children.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I think we can expect that experience and natural consequences will lead to Christianity coming around to the catholic position it held for 1,900 years that artificial contraception is sinful. Abstinence within marriage is okay, but not actual contraception. Two main reasons. Among Christians, those who want more children have more children rendering more family oriented people within the faith as those who are not so interested in family simply self annihilate. The other is that these family oriented people will come to dominate the clergy because, well, who else is there? They will come to outnumber those who love contraception. Contraception is inherently self-limiting as a preferred lifestyle. The very rare couple suffering from some condition that makes contraception the sanest choice, will likely adopt because they aren’t childless by choice. They will pass on those values to their adopted children.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @41

    As long as no one knows, we can still participate in society’s grotesque nuptial parodies.

    Well put. I love Rebekah Curtis!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @41

    As long as no one knows, we can still participate in society’s grotesque nuptial parodies.

    Well put. I love Rebekah Curtis!

  • Grace

    Marie @ 52

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, please calm down. Contraception has been around for thousands of years (probably invented right after the oldest profession, amirite”

    Marie, such a statement as “please calm down” is condescending and used by kids when when they hit late teens, for a variety of reasons, LOL. When having a discussion, such as the one we had last night – your mistake, was thinking that I believed you wrote the article, which you didn’t, and I never gave one thought that you had. With that in mind, and my assurance to you, that you had not, most likely embarrassed you.

    I was speaking of “Birth control pills” – you missed that part, and now launch into “contraception” and thousands of years.

    This is what I posted @51:
    “birth control pills” have been around – it’s over 50 years that’s a long time.”

    The subject I was talking about was BIRTH CONTROL PILLS – not all the forms of birth control since whenever.

    As you glibly posted:

    “Men should not speak so strongly toward a lady, methinks. But I understand now their frustration, since your mixture of arrogance and ignorance is quite frustrating.”

    “Arrogance and ignorance” :lol:

    Before using that tactic towards me, I suggest you take your appeal, check out your outburst, for the juvenile way in which you have addressed me, only because you made the mistake of thinking I thought you wrote the article by Rebekah Curtis. :lol:

  • Grace

    Marie @ 52

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, please calm down. Contraception has been around for thousands of years (probably invented right after the oldest profession, amirite”

    Marie, such a statement as “please calm down” is condescending and used by kids when when they hit late teens, for a variety of reasons, LOL. When having a discussion, such as the one we had last night – your mistake, was thinking that I believed you wrote the article, which you didn’t, and I never gave one thought that you had. With that in mind, and my assurance to you, that you had not, most likely embarrassed you.

    I was speaking of “Birth control pills” – you missed that part, and now launch into “contraception” and thousands of years.

    This is what I posted @51:
    “birth control pills” have been around – it’s over 50 years that’s a long time.”

    The subject I was talking about was BIRTH CONTROL PILLS – not all the forms of birth control since whenever.

    As you glibly posted:

    “Men should not speak so strongly toward a lady, methinks. But I understand now their frustration, since your mixture of arrogance and ignorance is quite frustrating.”

    “Arrogance and ignorance” :lol:

    Before using that tactic towards me, I suggest you take your appeal, check out your outburst, for the juvenile way in which you have addressed me, only because you made the mistake of thinking I thought you wrote the article by Rebekah Curtis. :lol:

  • Marie

    You are absolutely right–my writing could never be mistaken for Rebekah Curtis’s :D Please forgive me for accusing you of this error!

    I was frustrated by your response to the article, since you missed the point, but that’s neither here nor there. God’s peace to you!

  • Marie

    You are absolutely right–my writing could never be mistaken for Rebekah Curtis’s :D Please forgive me for accusing you of this error!

    I was frustrated by your response to the article, since you missed the point, but that’s neither here nor there. God’s peace to you!

  • Grace

    Marie,

    Thank you -

    “I was frustrated by your response to the article, since you missed the point, but that’s neither here nor there.

    It is a matter of “neither here nor there” – again, I did not miss the point. That Marie, is the problem you’re having, which is accepting the fact that people can fully understand, but disagree.

    A phrase that is used to substantiate that which has caused dissention, and then placed as an off handed defense of sorts.

    I assure however, that I have not missed the point in the article. Because someone doesn’t agree with another person, in this case, Rebekah Curtis, DOES NOT mean one has “missed the point” – I just don’t agree.

  • Grace

    Marie,

    Thank you -

    “I was frustrated by your response to the article, since you missed the point, but that’s neither here nor there.

    It is a matter of “neither here nor there” – again, I did not miss the point. That Marie, is the problem you’re having, which is accepting the fact that people can fully understand, but disagree.

    A phrase that is used to substantiate that which has caused dissention, and then placed as an off handed defense of sorts.

    I assure however, that I have not missed the point in the article. Because someone doesn’t agree with another person, in this case, Rebekah Curtis, DOES NOT mean one has “missed the point” – I just don’t agree.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG said (@57):

    I think we can expect that experience and natural consequences will lead to Christianity coming around to the catholic position it held for 1,900 years that artificial contraception is sinful. Abstinence within marriage is okay, but not actual contraception.

    That last sentence is funny. Guess which of these two is explicitly condemned in Scripture: (1) abstinence within marriage, or (2) contraception. Need a hint? 1 Corinthians 7:5.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG said (@57):

    I think we can expect that experience and natural consequences will lead to Christianity coming around to the catholic position it held for 1,900 years that artificial contraception is sinful. Abstinence within marriage is okay, but not actual contraception.

    That last sentence is funny. Guess which of these two is explicitly condemned in Scripture: (1) abstinence within marriage, or (2) contraception. Need a hint? 1 Corinthians 7:5.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, I see what you are saying. That wasn’t clear. I was thinking more along the lines of NFP, not total abstinence. You are right, and Curtis makes the same point.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, I see what you are saying. That wasn’t clear. I was thinking more along the lines of NFP, not total abstinence. You are right, and Curtis makes the same point.

  • Grace

    The article and video through the LINK I have provided, should wake up, not only our public school administrators, but most of all the church.

    This was a High School, young kids. PLEASE take a few minutes and watch the VIDEO.

    Apr 27, 2012
    Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens
    By Todd Starnes

    “As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

    The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
    Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.”

    ___another excerpt

    “The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

    As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them pansy-assed.
    “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” Savage said as other students hollered and cheered. “It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.”

    ____another excerpt

    “Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
    The conservative website CitizenLink was the first to report about the controversy. They interviewed a 17-year-old girl who was one of students who walked out of the auditorium.
    “The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

  • Grace

    The article and video through the LINK I have provided, should wake up, not only our public school administrators, but most of all the church.

    This was a High School, young kids. PLEASE take a few minutes and watch the VIDEO.

    Apr 27, 2012
    Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens
    By Todd Starnes

    “As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

    The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
    Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.”

    ___another excerpt

    “The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

    As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them pansy-assed.
    “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” Savage said as other students hollered and cheered. “It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.”

    ____another excerpt

    “Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
    The conservative website CitizenLink was the first to report about the controversy. They interviewed a 17-year-old girl who was one of students who walked out of the auditorium.
    “The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X