I think that allowing birth control is one of the biggest mistakes made by churches. What is the Anglican position on this?
There are of course many aspects to this complex issue. In the face of burgeoning world populations, where population growth is a significant fact in higher carbon emissions, it may indeed seem responsible to have a positive approach to birth control. In the west we face the issue of an increasingly oversexualised approach to life, where seemingly sex has become recreation rather than procreation. As human beings we do have a need for intimacy, mutual support help and comfort, however life is not simply birth copulation and death, it is also ecstasy and joy. Since the 1930's the Anglican Church has recognised that birth control may well be a responsible part of a family life, recognising that each of us must be guided by our informed conscience. The Anglican Communion, including the Church of England[, condemned artificial contraception at the 1908 and 1920 Lambeth Conferences. Later, the Anglican Communion gave approval for birth control in some circumstances at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. At the 1958 Lambeth Conference it was stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife"
Is not the use of birth control part of the reason we have this over sexualized culture. You can now have sex and it is pretty much sterile. Birth Control removed the danger of pregnancy for the most part from sex. At most it should be allowed for married couples but non married couples it should not be allowed for in my opinion for the reasons I have already stated.
The church condemns formication in its totality, whether contraception in used or not. So the two issues that really arise are: - Whether it is acceptable within marriage - Whether the availability of contraception actually leads to more sex outside of marriage I think that allowing it inside marriage seems good and proper, but if that is done then it will perhaps increase the availability of contraception for everyone, including those outside of wedlock. Of course, the church nowadays is hardly in a position to have such a profound influence on the matter, at least in western countries, but in theory those are the two matters that should be weighed up imo.
By birth control you mean artificial birth control. Birth control in the form of abstinence is obviously moral. It does; and it is also worth noting that the contraceptive pill’s main sponsor in the 1960’s Katherine McCormick encouraged the supply of the Pill to ‘liberate women from the tyranny of marriage’.
It seems obvious, yet the Roman Catholics still manage to disagree somehow... (On second thought, as an edit, perhaps that's unfair considering their sexual ethics is fairly nuanced. I mean within marriage and the command to procreate btw) I totally agree. The same's said for abortion. I just wonder whether or not the church should advocate a total ban on contraception, considering that it may be moral and good within marriage. From a practical standpoint, it's no use only conditionally advocating contraception, because that would get nothing done (in abstract terms it's totally fine) about it's availability. I'm totally undecided on the matter.
I think the question is, should we make a distinction between artificial and natural contraception... The Church has always banned artificial contraception, whereas natural contraception namely abstinence, NFP, would be allowed
I think that allowing it inside marriage seems good and proper, but if that is done then it will perhaps increase the availability of contraception for everyone, including those outside of wedlock. Of course, the church nowadays is hardly in a position to have such a profound influence on the matter, at least in western countries, but in theory those are the two matters that should be weighed up imo.[/QUOTE] I think the church should go back to just advocating for NFP
This topic reminded me of a blog post I read a week or two ago: https://www.simchafisher.com/2019/0...-is-real-but-its-probably-not-what-you-think/
I think, in order to get a proper perspective we need to go back to Genesis and ask what is the purpose of sex and marriage. Do we believe that we are created in God's image, man and woman, and did He join us together? And if He has, what are the implications of that union? That would make the marriage bed holy, would it not? and does contraception debase that?
I think God disapproves of contraception (other than abstinence). There was an example in the O.T. of birth control: Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. Adam Clarke's commentary on this passage says: "The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother, and rather than do it, by the act mentioned above, he rendered himself incapable of it. We find from this history that long before the Mosaic law it was an established custom, probably founded on a Divine precept, that if a man died childless his brother was to take his wife, and the children produced by this second marriage were considered as the children of the first husband, and in consequence inherited his possessions." But if the woman died childless, Onan as the new husband (or his own sons) probably would have stood to inherit all she had (including whatever possessions his brother had left behind). There is no question in my mind: if artificial contraceptives were not available, the deterrence factor of potential pregnancy would drastically decrease the rate of fornication.
I don't have much truck with the theory that contraception stops God's plan for us to otherwise have children. My view is you must think God is pretty weak to allow a pill or a few microns of rubber to frustrate his plans. Also if it is wrong to prevent God's plan to have a child born by using contraception, why is it also not wrong to try to prevent God taking a life through say cancer or a heart attack by using drugs or surgery?
Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ Genesis 2:18 I am reminded that procreation is indeed only one of the causes for marriage, along with a remedy against sin, and mutuality help and comfort. I don't know that it is a cause of it, so much as a symptom of it. Sex is not supposed to be Vatican Roulette. Sex is about intimacy, and yes ideally inside of marriage, however realism says that horse has bolted. I would have to say I prefer birth control to abortion.
To believe that contraception can thwart God's plan would truly be to make Him small and violate His sovreignty. The Lord caused Sarah to conceive in her old age may we never forget the virgin birth of our Lord. No bit of latex nor a chemical concoction is going to frustrate God's purposes. The point I am getting at is that God has created with purpose and He is the "Lord and giver of life". Are we cooperating with God's purposes when we actively prevent conception? If we promote sexual pleasure to the exclusion of the potential for life, are we perhaps treating His purposes with contempt? This is certainly a complex issue, and I don't intend to over simplify it, but I think that these are foundational questions to consider.
Yes, I agree that those fundamentals are to be considered quite strongly, however so is the present reality I think. I think the EO attitude on marriage is something we could learn from. They obviously don't like (as is shown in their ceremonies), but will accede to second (and sometimes third) marriages where both original spouses are still alive. In the case of birth control, apparently tho' the ideal is that no-one artificially contracept, there is no punishment for artificially limiting families except through abortion.
Well, if you include the idea that God foreknew what people would do, then one could say that everything we do is part of "God's plan." But that doesn't mean it's God's will for us to do all those things. No, it does not "make Him small" or "violate His sovereignty" when people sin. People commit armed robbery and this is against God's will, but their sinful acts do not make God incapable or violate His sovereignty. It just means that God allows people to exercise their free will, whether for good or for bad. To say that contraceptive devices can't frustrate God's purposes misses the point; the real question is, do their use go against His will?
God is not the one who causes cancer or heart disease. We live in a fallen world. There are all sorts of environmental and genetic factors in this fallen world which result in diseases, injuries, and physical deaths. In addition, the lies of the adversary tempt and lead many people to an earlier death than they otherwise would experience (via drug use, gluttony, etc). God is the blesser and the provider of more-abundant life, not the killer. So of course there's nothing wrong with trying to stay healthy and prolong natural life.