The issue of birth control and family planning is a highly controversial and hotly debated emotional topic within the Church, and the issue has only heated up in recent years as new information has been released about the nature and effects of certain family planning methods. For many couples, the issue is a deeply personal one because of its profound and broad implications not only for their own families but also for the Church at large. For some, birth control is a matter of personal liberty while for others it is a matter of moral culpability. Either way, taking a position on this particular issue is going to offend someone depending on their perspective, and that is perhaps why most churches and pastors either do not take an official position on the matter or avoid the issue altogether.
For me as a pastor, I consider it a moral obligation on my part to not only carefully think through the issue of birth control from a biblical perspective but also to provide moral and ethical guidance to those who are under my care. Whether I desire to confront this issue or not, the reality is that I am confronted with it because the people I shepherd are dealing with it. Therefore, I will do my best to express in this post my perspective on the issue for the benefit of not only my own personal growth and understanding but also for the benefit of those that I have the opportunity to guide and care for.
When it comes to the underlying issue of family planning, the Bible does not address the topic directly but it does provide wisdom that indirectly relates to the subject at hand. First of all, the Bible does tell us that “children are a heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3), so we know that children are a gift or reward from God that should be received with gratitude from His Hand. Further, it is implied that more children do also bring an increased reward as it says “Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them” (Psalm 127:5). At the same time, though the Bible does tell us that children are a reward and that more children enhance that reward, the Bible does not specifically tell us just how many children we all must have. In other words, though there is an acknowledgment of the blessing of children, there is no actual biblical mandate for us that prescribes just how many that should be.
And, though we do not see a clear mandate in Scripture determining the size of our families, we do see a biblical mandate to be good stewards, good stewards of our time, our energy, our resources and even our bodies, among other things. And, we certainly see evidence that we are to be good stewards of our families as well. For example, deacons and elders are prescribed to “manage their children and households well” (1 Timothy 3:4,12) and parents are instructed to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). As well, parents are also told that failure to provide for their relatives “especially for members of their household” (1 Timothy 5:8) is a denial of the faith and an embarrassment to the Church.
Because the Scriptures do mandate stewardship for all of us, we must apply this to the subject at hand. The question we all must be asking when it comes to planning our families is, “What is my stewardship before the Lord in regard to my own family?” In other words, we must consider what the Lord requires of each of us when it comes to the size and the care of our families. We see in Scripture that God entrusts certain gifts and empowers certain abilities to people for their task in life. In the Bible we call these gifts or abilities “talents” which vary from person to person and, by implication, from family to family. We read that God distributes these talents among people with an expectation that we would steward them well, and our stewardship is not related to the number of talents that we have been given. Notice that the emphasis in Matthew 25 is not on how many “talents” each has received but upon how well those “talents” have been managed. The application is that there are different stewardships given to different people depending on God’s expectation for those individuals or families. Therefore, we cannot necessarily presume that all families ought to have the same stewardship in regard to the size of their families.
Due to the fact that there is no prescriptive biblical mandate for all people regarding the size of their families but that there is a prescriptive command to be wise and effective stewards of all things, my conviction is that it is not unbiblical or sinful to plan how many children we ought to have in our families. Therefore, in light of that understanding, I’m not sure that the “right” or “moral” thing to do is to just wing it with our family planning and just presume that “God will provide”. Although there certainly is an expectation that God will provide for our families regardless of their size, I just don’t think throwing all caution to the wind and hoping for the best is really consistent with the concept of biblical stewardship. By this I mean that though we trust in the Lord to protect us while we drive in our cars, we still must wear our seat belts. And, though we trust in the Lord to heal our bodies, we still take our medication. Therefore, though we trust in God to provide for our needs, would we not be presumptuous to assume that we have no responsibility in securing our provision? It’s sort of like cashing a check in advance hoping that funds will somehow be deposited to keep it from bouncing. But, of course, it would be irresponsible for us to write a check without having some confirmation that the funds are indeed available. This simply serves to illustrate the point that I believe that our effective stewardship in all things includes our own responsibility for the effective care of and provision for our families before God, and I believe that God will hold us all accountable as parents for our wisdom or for our foolishness with that entrusted stewardship.
All of this is to say that family planning, in and of itself, is not sinful or unwise. However, the methods used to accomplish our family planning could be. The primary issue surrounding the use of birth control is whether the method prevents conception or destroys it. The general consensus among the Christian community is that life starts at the moment of conception. Though some even within the Church maintain that genuine conception occurs only after the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall, most agree that conception is achieved once the sperm and the egg are joined irregardless of its successful implantation in the womb. This fertilization can actually occur in the fallopian tubes even before the egg settles into the uterus, and this fundamental definition of when life begins plays an instrumental role in our understanding and use of birth control.
Given the agreed upon definition of when exactly life begins, there would therefore be two birth control options that would be considered biblically consistent and morally acceptable for Christians and one that may not be. The first biblically and morally acceptable option would be what is called “natural birth control”. Natural methods of contraception include the calendar-rhythm method, the symptothermal method and the standard days method, which are all used to prevent conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse on days when the wife is likely to be fertile. Natural birth control methods are beneficial in that they are free, require no surgery, involve no chemicals, devices or drugs, and have no side effects, although these methods do require self-discipline and organized planning on the part of the couple.
The second biblically and morally acceptable option is what has been called “non-abortive birth control”. Just as with the natural methods, non-abortive control methods work to influence the timing of conception but by taking additional temporary or permanent measures. Temporary non-abortive birth control methods are generally referred to as barrier methods that permit intercourse but prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Temporary non-abortive methods of contraception for men include condoms and for women include the diaphragm, contraceptive sponges, cervical caps and female condoms. Permanent non-abortive methods include vasectomy for men and tubal ligation or sterilization for women. Though permanent measures can in some cases be reversed if there is a change of heart, one would be wise to carefully consider both the implications of and the reasons for those procedures before pursuing them.
Though both of the aforementioned birth control measures would be considered biblically and morally acceptable, there is a third and very prevalent method of birth control that may not be. This third method has been called “potentially abortive birth control” because of the risk that fertilized eggs could be unknowingly terminated through their usage. These methods, among others, include IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant and the pill. The most commonly used of these, the birth control pill, which is taken daily by 50-60 million women worldwide making it the most widely prescribed drug in the world, is a categorical term for more than forty types of oral contraceptives that contain estrogen and/or progestin. These hormonal contraceptives are designed to override the female body’s normal cycle and basically “trick” the brain into believing that she is already pregnant, thus preventing the release of an egg from the ovaries.
Until recently, it has been widely understood that the pill always prevents conception by preventing ovulation. However, recent data has revealed that this may in fact not always be true. What has now been suggested is that women who use the pill may actually continue to release eggs through what has been called spontaneous or “breakthrough ovulation.” And, if birth control pills do not always stop ovulation, then it is possible that fertilized eggs are inevitably being chemically aborted by the body. According to medical experts, there are three mechanisms or purposes for the birth control pill. The first mechanism is to inhibit ovulation. The second mechanism is to thicken cervical mucus in order to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg should it be released. And, the third mechanism is to thin the lining of the uterus in order to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The first two mechanisms or purposes of the birth control pill would be considered contraceptive but the third would be considered abortive because it creates an inhospitable environment that will reject an already potentially fertilized egg. So, the concern is that if the first and second mechanisms fail, then it is entirely possible that a fertilized egg would be flushed from the body due to the third mechanism. Some have proposed that this happens up to 50 percent of the time, but it is likely that is much more uncommon than has been suggested. Still, the moral issue remains. If indeed birth control pills do not always prevent conception and if they do actually chemically terminate conception when it occurs, then we definitely have a moral and ethical dilemma on our hands. Furthermore, if birth control pills create the potential for chemical abortion, then IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant certainly would as well.
Simply put, the first two birth control methods are clearly contraceptive in nature and are therefore morally acceptable options, but the third is potentially abortive in that it will disrupt the new life of a fertilized egg and is morally suspect. What no one denies on either side of this debate is that there is a potential for non-intended chemically induced abortions, but what they disagree on is if and how often it really occurs. However, every Christian couple ought to carefully and prayerfully consider whether the potential risk is acceptable or not. The reality is that many Christians and Christian doctors disagree on the acceptable risks surrounding this method, so it seems presumptuous and even inappropriate to universally declare that using the birth control pill is expressly sinful. However, I do think that Christian couples ought to be better informed about the abortive risks of birth control pills so that they can study the matter fully for themselves and prayerfully consider according to their own conscience and leading of the Holy Spirit whether they take that chance or not.
The bottom line is that the central issue with the family planning debate is not if we should plan but how we should plan our families. Though some couples will choose not to make any plans, most can and will choose to do so. And, for those who do plan their family, my sincere hope is that they would not only carefully discuss, pray over and think through the issue but that they would also solicit medical and spiritual guidance from their doctor and pastor as they decide what method and approach is right and best for their family.
