27 April 2010

Evangelicals get all the press

But we don’t begrudge those with a large pulpit the limelight, particularly when they employ it to address a topic that’s near and dear to the CSPP heart—a topic that’s most often ignored by those near the mike in more Concordian circles.

Albert Mohler has regrettably not followed completely through on marriage and procreation, as evinced by his quote in the TIME article his post references: he toes the annoying party line that so long as a couple is "not seeking to alienate their sexual relationship from the gift of children, they can seek to space or limit the total number of children they have." Perhaps he nuances that more helpfully elsewhere; I haven’t looked to see if that’s the case.

While CSPP cannot therefore offer a wholehearted endorsement, we may yet be grateful that there’s someone who’s willing to stand up and say:

“I do indeed believe that the development of the Pill ‘has done more to reorder human life than any event since Adam and Eve ate the apple.’ Why? Because sex, sexuality, and reproduction are so central to human life, to marriage, and to the future of humanity.

"The Pill turned pregnancy — and thus children — into elective choices, rather than natural gifts of the marital union. But then again, the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex. In some hands, the Pill became a human pesticide.

"Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies…

"Even now, we are unable to take into account the full significance of the Pill and its use. But nothing of this significance should escape the thoughtful concern of faithful Christians. TIME magazine’s current cover story puts the issue of the Pill and birth control front and center in our cultural conversation. It should be an important part of our Christian conversation as well.”

Human pesticide. Not bad.

P.S. I’m particularly amused/consternated by the dude in the TIME piece who thought he’d found in the Pill “an exquisite chemical escape hatch” to the church’s objection to artificial birth control: “With the Pill, there was no barrier preventing the union of sperm and egg; all the Pill did, Rock argued, was mimic naturally occurring hormones to extend the safe period, so that sex was safe all month long. The church wouldn't need to change its historic teaching, he suggested; the Pill just fell outside its definition of contraception.”

Ah, how limitless is the human potential to justify our selfish indulgences! How gladly, how glibly, how gracefully, we dance semantically around our sins!

3 comments:

Rebekah said...

I remember reading an article in the New Yorker about Rock and his sophistic understanding of church dogma and subsequent belief that the Pill would get ecclesiastical approval. Wait . . . http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2000/03/13/2000_03_13_052_TNY_LIBRY_000020393

Abstract only.

>>not seeking to alienate their sexual relationship from the gift of children, they can seek to space or limit the total number of children they have

I guess if you could do that second thing without the first, this would make sense.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to the full article

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm

Gauntlets said...

Human pesticide?!? That is exactly what it is. ROAR. Now I'm completely. Angry.

Seriously, Americans. Stop being such freaking tools.