Though the author is a Roman Catholic, this op-ed not only provides a timeline of telling statistics, it raises important questions about the ethics of contraceptives.
Along the lines of what Ellul would say, the creation of of contraceptives is nothing less than the creation of a new technology, which forces us to think about appropriate use and detrimental effects on society. How does this technology change our view of marriage, procreation, and sex? How might a Christian’s use speak of the wisdom of God in creation without resulting in foolish disorder?
If we don’t think about these questions, we’ll fall into (ethical) pits and be just like the world.
Recommended reading:
- Peter Jones, The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality
. This gives a detailed history of the “sex revolution” and its connection with pagan spirituality & contrasts this with a Christian view of sex.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 7, 2009 at 5:58 pm
theogothic
Hey Casey,
How is the author defining contraceptive? Is it mainly referring to “the pill” or does it include the use of condoms? I couldn’t tell by the article.
I have pointed out to some that the language (if not the logic) of Humanae Vitae has an unrealistic view of the human body (and I appreciate many of the Catholic church’s positions on the matter). If I have read Humanae Vitae correctly, it seems to state for a sexual act to be God-honoring (my phrase) each act must be equally open to procreation. Obviously, that isn’t possible. But I don’t think that is the point it was making.
Another line of fallacious reasoning, which many PBers engaged in, was that the pill was wrong because it denied God’s sovereignty? Maybe it does (and I am not an apologist for the pill), but is not NFP the same thing? Do not some advocates of it abstain from sex during her most fertile time of the month? If so, how is that not denying God’s sovereignty?
there are a lot of problems with the pill mentality, and I certainly am not an apologist for it, but I have noticed many (not you, and not the author of said article) use terrible reasoning for their position.
February 7, 2009 at 6:15 pm
theogothic
Hey Casey,
In the Wipf & Stock edition (pp. 140-141) of *The Mystical Presence* Nevin says the sacraments, at least on his proposed Calvinian view, have objective force and value. It is not the same as Doug Wilson saying the covenant is objective, but it is a step in that direction.
Compare with Keith Mathison’s appraisal of Turretin’s eucharistology (Mathison does examine his views; I am only giving the conclusions). He says “For Turretin, the connection between the sign and the things signified is a connection that occurs only in our minds” (Mathison, *Given for You*, 115).
Now, Nevin’s appraisal of how American Reformed Christianity abandoned the early Reformers is fairly obvious. Rich Lusk simply summarized it. And perhaps that couldn’t be helped. As much as I despise Lockean contractual theory and invidualism, it is like what Flannery O’Connor said of nihilism–it is the air we breathe.
February 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm
theogothic
Hey Casey,
Thanks for yuor comment. The most important book written on postliberal theology is George Lindbeck’s *The Nature of Doctrine.* It is relatively clear and pretty short (150 pages or so). It has some problems (I don’t think he fully left liberalism), but it does a good job in demonstrating doctrinal development over history.
Peter Leithart (*Against Christianity*) and Kevin Vanhoozer (*The Drama of Doctrine*) have given Reformed improvements on Lindbeck’s work.
February 8, 2009 at 5:53 pm
theogothic
Hey Casey,
I just found some interseting quotes which show both similiarties and differences between Mercersburg and FV (and these are written by FV guys, so I don’t think they are Romanticizing the issue).
http://evangelicalcatholicity.wordpress.com/category/mercersburg-theology/
April 26, 2009 at 8:40 am
Richard
theogothic, I read it as “nothing unnatural should be used to prevent what would happen naturally” and with that I would agree. As the article puts it sex is not for recreation.