The problem with the division seems to be the notion that contraception equals promiscuity or an image of 20-something adults on college campuses who choose sex over God. It fails to take into account committed relationships where not having children is considered stewardship. Morgan Guyton summed up an amazing rebuttal to the cry of Evangelical Christians standing together against this slide into moral anarchy. He and his wife decided to use contraception because they wanted to remain good parents to the children they already have by not straining their financial resources beyond what they can afford. They also want to make sure they have time for their marriage in the midst of the other commitments of life. Both of these reasons would be greatly strained with the addition of another child.
Is it really the taking of a pill or using a condom that represents a moral decline in America? Does contraception use mean that Christians are turning their backs on God? Hardly. It means we choose to be good stewards of our bodies and resources. We are aware that our planet is groaning under a population explosion that threatens our natural resources. It means we do not want to saddle our children with crippling debt because we had them before we could care for them. Faithful men and women can still follow God's teaching and Christ's example of ministry while using modern medicine to elect delaying having children.
Do your remarks apply to unmarried people in a committed, loving relationship or only to married people?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your question David. While the remarks apply to all people, I specifically mentioned married couples because contraception issues usually focus on unmarried women, and I felt discussing married couples created a more apples-to-apples discussion with the opposition.
ReplyDelete