Christians and the contraception culture

Thursday, 21 September 2006

 Dr ES Williams (MB BCh, FFPHM)

Introduction

Evangelical Christians have always struggled with the issue of contraception. Older Christians can remember the time when the Church believed that artificial contraception was a moral evil. But the easy availability of oral contraception since the early 1960s, and the persuasive arguments of the family planning movement, has led to the pragmatic acceptance of contraception as a means for spacing children. The apparent economic advantage for limiting family size has meant that the two-child family has become the norm, even among Christians. 

While the popular modern view is that Christian liberty permits married couples to use contraception, this view does not address the moral issues that have characterised a society in which contraceptives are easily available to all, irrespective of marital status and age, as in the UK. There is no doubt that the contraception era, which really started in the 1970s when the Pill and IUD (intra-uterine device) became widely available and succeeded in separating sex from reproduction, has led to enormous changes in sexual conduct. Two issues illustrate this point. The first is the growth of premarital cohabitation. Effective contraception has made it possible for a young couple to live together in a sexual relationship before marriage without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy. The second issue is the Government’s ‘safer sex’ policy that promotes contraceptives among schoolchildren in an attempt to avoid unwanted teenage pregnancies.  

 Until now the response of evangelical Christianity has been to remain silent on the issue of contraception. But the Christian Institute has broken this silence with the publication of Contraception: a pro-life guide. My purpose in writing this booklet is twofold. First, to challenge the Christian Institute’s guidance on pro-life contraception, and second, to explain the contraception culture and its underlying ideology.

 Contraception: a pro-life guide

This is undoubtedly an important work for it reveals current evangelical thinking about contraception. The aim of the Christian Institute’s book is to provide background knowledge on how contraceptives work. ‘As a result we hope that Christian readers will be better equipped to make well-informed ethical decisions. Above all else the book explains the difference between those contraceptives which can act to destroy a human embryo and those which, according to the best available medical evidence do not.’[1]  A pro-life guide sets set out to identify what it calls pro-life contraceptives. In May 2005 the Institute sent out a copy of the book to all church leaders and doctors on its mailing list. 

 A pro-life guide acknowledges that ‘nowadays the ethics of contraception are rarely considered in our churches and most Protestant couples enter marriage without reservation about their use’.[2] The book argues that as more is now known about the ways in which contraception affect the embryo, Christian couples need this knowledge. The hope is that those who read the book will ‘thoughtfully and prayerfully re-examine this aspect of their lives and possibly make adjustments to their contraceptive practice and/or teaching on the subject… This book will inform us and bring us up to date as far as possible. The information has practical value. Clergy providing premarital courses should promote obviously pro-life methods of contraception.’[3] Clearly, the aim of the Christian Institute is to influence the way evangelicals think and teach about contraception. For this reason we need to take A pro-life guide seriously.

 While admitting that ‘it can be argued that the availability of contraception has promoted fornication and adultery’,[4] A pro-life guide makes no attempt to address the link between contraception and sexual immorality. The fact that Christians recognise that life begins at fertilisation, ‘has profound ethical implications for the use of any contraceptive which acts to threaten the survival or implantation of an early embryo.’[5] The guide, therefore, sets out to identify those contraceptives which do not damage the early embryo, labels them as pro-life, and marks them with a green tick. Contraceptives which damage the embryo are marked with a red cross. All the main categories of contraception are reviewed and classified as ‘pro-life’, ‘not pro-life’ or ‘not sure’.

 The Christian Institute’s family planning expert

The major source of advice used by A pro-life guide is the writings of the former medical director of the Margaret Pyke Centre for Study and Training in Family Planning, Professor John Guillebaud. There are 30 references to his work and three times he is referred to as a ‘family planning expert’.[6] The professor’s book, Contraception – your questions answered, has the official approval of the Family Planning Association (FPA), which is hardly surprising as he claims that ‘currently the best source (of written literature) in the UK is the FPA leaflets… Indeed, the more comprehensive FPA leaflets which are now available should be given with the words keep this in a safe place for reference’.[7] (his italics)

 Guillebaud is one of the main personalities behind the contraceptive culture in the UK. At a conference, discussing contraception in the twenty-first century, he said that new contraceptives were coming on the market which would mean that teenagers could be implanted with devices which could switch off their ability to have children. They could then ‘forget’ about contraception and, when they felt able to have a child, they could remove the implant.  Professor Guillebaud said: ‘In the future, and as a social policy, when you have an area with a huge rate of teenage pregnancies you could go into a school, obviously with the consent of the parents, and fit this device so that everybody would start out not being able to have a baby. It could be fitted into girls once they have had their periods but before they have had sex – for instance, at the time when they were having their Rubella jabs.’[8] At the time his comments sparked outrage, including a call for him to be arrested for promoting under-age sex. A spokeswoman for Life said: ‘It is a green light to go ahead and be promiscuous.’[9] 

 The professor is co-chairman of the Optimum Population Council, which believes that the population of the UK should be reduced to 30 million. We need to understand that Contraception: a pro-life guide, to a large degree, is based on the advice of Professor Guillebaud, ardent supporter of the FPA, and former director of the Margaret Pyke Centre.

 Pro-life contraception

The essential message of the guide is that certain contraceptives are pro-life. Contraceptives are assumed to be pro-life in their mechanism of action if they prevent the sperm from fertilising the ovum, and therefore do not damage the early embryo. According to the Institute, pro-life contraceptives include the condom, spermicide, female condom (Femidom), the more frequent replacement of the hormone implant, the more frequent injections of Depo-Provera, male and female sterilisation, the combined oral contraceptive pill, natural birth control (includes the withdrawal method), and the diaphragm. Contraceptives deemed to destroy the embryo, and therefore not pro-life, are the morning-after pill, RU486, the progestogen-only pill and the intrauterine device. 

 We shall first examine the Christian Institute’s advice on particular pro-life methods of contraception before examining the wider context in which this advice is being delivered.   Two pro-life contraceptive methods, namely, Depo-Provera and human sterilisation are considered. (The more frequent replacement of the hormone implant, which the Christian Institute labels pro-life, is not considered, as the arguments are similar to those covered by the hormonal injection Depo-Provera.) The Institute’s advice on pro-life condoms is discussed in the section on contraceptives for children. 

 Depo-Provera

A pro-life guide classifies the hormonal injections (Depo-Provera and Noristerat) as pro-life in that they contain a high concentration of hormones and so are able to stop a woman from ovulating. There is, therefore, no danger of the ovum being fertilised. However, as the time for replacement of the injection draws near there is a small possibility that a woman may ovulate, and in these circumstances Depo-Provera may cause the loss of an embryo. ‘The resultant embryo may be unable to implant in the womb because of its thinned lining and is lost.’[10] According to the guide ‘a method aimed at suppressing ovulation is to shorten the replacement interval. Thus a woman could request the hormone injection be given every 10 weeks instead of the usual 12.’[11] So by using Depo-Provera more frequently than recommended by the manufacturer it becomes ‘pro-life’. Here it must be pointed out that the Institute is recommending that Depo-Provera is used outside its product licence, a practice which can have serious legal and ethical implications. 

 The Institute appears to have based its advice on Professor Guillebaud’s article, When Do Contraceptives Work? published in Triple Helix, the journal of the Christian Medical Fellowship. According to Guillebaud, ‘Depo-Provera is a brilliantly effective anovulant [prevents ovulation] if injected accurately every 12 weeks. For someone with concerns regarding its modes of action, there is the option of having the injection every ten weeks.’[12] But on what evidence does Guillebaud base his opinion? None that I can find! So the Institute is recommending that Christian couples use Depo-Provera out of product licence on the opinion of its ‘family planning’ expert.  

 A pro-life guide mentions that the side effects ‘of Depo-Provera and Noristerat include weight change, irregular bleeding or an absence of bleeding. Less common side effects include breast pain and depression. A 1984 study found on average a 9-month delay in the return of fertility after treatment is stopped. In Depo-Provera users, thinning of the bone has been reported.  This is reversible once treatment has stopped.’[13] (my italics) 

 There are three serious problems with this information. First, the information on bone density is incorrect. The USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA), together with the manufacturer of Depo-Provera (Pfizer), have issued the following ‘black box’ warning: ‘Women who use Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increasing duration of use and may not be completely reversible.’ The injection ‘reduces serum oestrogen levels and is associated with significant loss of bone mineral density as bone metabolism accommodates to a lower oestrogen level. This loss of bone mineral density is of particular concern during adolescence and early adulthood, a critical period of bone accretion.’[14] According to the manufacturer’s guide: ‘The loss of calcium may increase your risk of osteoporosis and broken bones, particularly after your menopause.’[15] (my italics)

 So the statement in A pro-life guide that the thinning of bone density is reversible once treatment has stopped is incorrect. Moreover, this bone thinning occurs with the recommended frequency of use, namely 12 weekly, and is of such serious danger to health that the drug company has issued a product warning. Surely 10 weekly injections will produce even more significant bone loss? This is a serious matter for the evidence suggests that the bone loss may be irreversible, leading to future osteoporosis.

 Second, the Institute has given an incomplete and optimistic view of the side effects. The manufacturer’s information sheet for patients gives a more realistic view: ‘Most women using Depo-Provera for contraception experience changes in their normal monthly period. This includes irregular or unpredictable bleeding or spotting, or rarely, heavy or continuous bleeding. If abnormal bleeding continues or is severe, see your doctor immediately. With continued use of Depo-Provera, it is usual for vaginal bleeding to decrease. Your periods may stop completely. When you stop using Depo-Provera, your periods will return. However, this may take up to 18 months.’[16] The patient information sheet provides a long list of side effects that should be reported to the doctor, which include fatigue, depression, dizziness, headache and acne. Symptoms that may be the sign of a serious medical problem include shortness of breath, wheezing or trouble breathing; sharp chest pain or coughing up blood.      

 Third, information on the return of fertility is misleading. Unlike other contraceptives, Depo-Provera causes a delay in the return of fertility after discontinuation of use. Although this delay is 9 months on average, it is more for women over 30 years of age, with 15% of this sub-group still not pregnant 48 months after they have stopped using Depo-Provera.[17]

 The above assessment suggests that A pro-life guide has presented a misleading picture of Depo-Provera that does not truly represent the real dangers of this drug. The book An epidemiological review of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera, by an Indian epidemiologist, presents a sound critique of the contraceptive, reviewing over 200 scientific papers. The book claims that leading gynaecologists are off the mark in their assessment of the safety of Depo-Provera. Worse, they favoured Depo-Provera despite formidable evidence against it. The author concludes that World Health Organisation and US FDA approval is presumably under the pressure of the population control lobby.[18]

 Finally the advice that the drug can be used more frequently than recommended by the manufacturer, outside the product licence, is probably negligent, and may seriously endanger the health of those who follow this advice.

 Male and female sterilisation

According to A pro-life guide, ‘Female sterilisation is the most common method of contraception used by married or cohabiting women world wide… This method cannot destroy an embryo and so in that sense it is pro-life. However there is a very small risk of an ectopic pregnancy following sterilisation. In this rare event an embryo would be lost. In addition the use of sterilisation raises other important ethical issues which are not discussed in this book.’[19] Male sterilisation ‘cannot destroy an embryo and so, in that sense, it is pro-life. However, the use of sterilisation raises other important ethical issues which are not discussed in this book.’[20] So the Christian Institute labels female and male sterilisation as pro-life, and while acknowledging that there are ethical issues, it fails to deal with them.

 But Christians who read the Bible will be very uneasy about this advice. The Bible teaches that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and we should glorify God in our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). God’s law emphasises the sanctity of the male reproductive organs. ‘If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to the rescue of her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity’ (Deuteronomy 25:11). The purpose of this text is to demonstrate the sanctity of the male reproductive organs. The wife was right to come to the assistance of her husband, but wrong to attack the man’s reproductive organs. There was the real possibility that she could effectively have emasculated her victim so as to remove any hope of his siring children.[21] The severity of the punishment shows how displeased God is with those who attack the male sexual organs. The Scripture is teaching that the reproductive organs are not to be wilfully damaged or harmed.

 God’s people have always believed that it is wrong to harm our bodies. God’s law declares, ‘You are children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves…’ (Deuteronomy 14:1). God’s people are to distinguish themselves from the nations around them; they are not to cut their bodies like the pagans do. According to Matthew Henry’s Commentary, the true meaning ‘would appear to be, Do yourselves no harm… Those that are dedicated to God as a holy people must do nothing to disfigure themselves; the body is for the Lord, and is to be used accordingly.’[22] The aim of sterilisation is to cut the body in order to damage the reproductive organs and so destroy God’s gift of procreation. Clearly those who deliberately choose sterilisation are violating their body and disobeying God’s law.

 Despite the fact that the sterilisation is now widespread in our post Christian culture, and is one of the most popular ways of avoiding pregnancy, Christians cannot simply follow the ways of the world and accept a practice that damages their reproductive organs. Philip Hughes, in Christian Ethics in Secular Society, makes the point that wholesale sterilisation subverts the order of creation. ‘But sex without reproduction is subversion of the primary purpose of sex; sex merely for the pleasure of the individual is the perversion of sex to selfish and licentious ends which will soon pall in surfeit and disgust.’[23]

 The presupposition behind A pro-life guide is that Christian couples are free to use contraception to control their fertility in the way that is most convenient to them, with the proviso that they use ‘pro-life’ contraception. But Christians have not always been so relaxed over the issue. A pro-life guide points out that, ‘Historically, Christians have not always shared today’s generally positive ethical attitude to contraceptives. Their use was almost universally rejected until 1930 when the Anglican Church eased its sanction in limited circumstances. Over the subsequent decades much of the Protestant Church has followed its lead. Nowadays the ethics of contraception are rarely considered in our churches…’[24] From a position of outright opposition to the birth control movement the Church has had a remarkable change of mind, learning not only to co-exist with, but even to embrace the culture that promotes the use of contraception. To understand the significance of this change of mind we need to recognise the ideology behind the contraceptive culture and understand how it has come about.

 The battle over contraception

In nineteenth century Great Britain the public discussion of contraception was considered to be offensive, indecent and against the moral mores of society. The thought of making contraception available to unmarried people was deeply shocking. Following the great evangelical revival of the eighteenth century Great Britain was a deeply Christian nation and there was a belief within society that the Bible provided the moral standards by which all people ought to live. There was a clear distinction between right and wrong when it came to sexual conduct. It was right that women should be modest and chaste, and it was wrong, even shameful, for single women to be sexually active. It was right for men to treat women with honour and respect, and it was wrong for men to be sexual predators. Everybody in society, with the exception of a few radicals and ‘new women’, believed that sex outside marriage was wrong. For an unmarried couple to openly live together was unthinkable and condemned in no uncertain terms as ‘living in sin’.

 But the radicals and freethinkers, who despised Christianity, saw the promotion of contraception as an important aspect of the revolt against Christian moral standards. The drive to disseminate contraceptive advice, which the majority of people found offensive, came from an ideology that rejected the moral absolutes of God’s word.

 Francis Place

The birth control movement in England started in the 1820s when Francis Place, a political radical, accepted Malthus’ reasoning on the need for population control, believing that the answer lay in contraception. Place was a committed secularist who intensely disliked the growing influence of Christianity in the nation and in 1823 he began a campaign to publicise his ideas about contraception. His aim was to explain to the common people that there were harmless methods of contraception that could be used to limit family size. He wrote and circulated anonymous leaflets, which became known as ‘The Diabolical Handbills’, that gave details of methods of contraception—the sponge as a vaginal tampon, though withdrawal was also mentioned.[25]  

 Place supported the idea of ‘free love’ and raised the question ‘would it not be desirable that sexual intercourse should be free. I think it would.’[26] However, he kept his ideas on ‘free love’ to himself as he knew that the contraception campaign would be damaged by his radical views on sexual behaviour.

 Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh

In the second half of the nineteenth century Annie Besant continued the campaign to make contraception socially acceptable. As a young woman she rejected the Christian faith, deserted her husband (a vicar in the Church of England) and two children, and befriended Charles Bradlaugh, an avowed atheist and a prominent member of the Secular Society. Annie developed a particular dislike of what she regarded as repressive Christian morality and campaigned to make contraception a public issue. In 1877 she and Bradlaugh set up the Freethought Publishing Company with the express purpose of publishing a book on contraception—Fruits of Philosophy. Besant and Bradlaugh were duly charged with publishing material that was likely to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences.

 In a sensational trial, in which they conducted their own defence and sought as much publicity as possible, the prosecution asserted that those who ‘published advice on contraception really intended that not only men but women should abandon chastity, to the utter ruin of society’.[27] The jury found that the book on contraception was calculated to deprave public morals but at the same time exonerated the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing it. While the judge recorded a verdict of guilty, the charges were later dismissed on a legal technicality. The trial generated enormous publicity for their campaign to make contraception a public issue.

 Margaret Sanger – the battle over birth control in the USAtc "The battle over contraception in the USA"

In 1873 the USA Congress passed laws to suppress obscene literature and the distribution and sale of contraceptives. The driving force behind these laws was Anthony Comstock, a devout Christian. He was appalled by the pornography and prostitution he saw on the streets of New York and believed that explicit advertisements for birth control devices were offensive to public morality. He identified the contraceptive industry as an enemy of chastity and claimed that the easy availability of contraceptives promoted lust and lewdness. 

 Margaret Sanger became an ardent opponent of the Comstock Laws and devoted her life to the promotion of contraception. She coined the term ‘birth control’ and founded the National Birth Control League, the forerunner of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). She believed that contraception liberated women from the bondage cause by traditional morality. As a skilled propagandist for the joys of the flesh, she argued that the birth control movement freed the mind from ‘sexual prejudice and taboo, by demanding the frankest and most unflinching re-examination of sex in its relation to human nature and the bases of human society’.[28]

 David Kennedy, in Birth Control in America, concludes that Margaret Sanger, as the foremost propagandist for sexual reform in twentieth century America, exemplified a critical shift in sexual attitudes from those of the nineteenth century.[29] Sanger identified the objective of her activities as ‘unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children’.[30] When she visited England in 1914 her discussion with the leaders of sexual liberation in England had a strong impact on her thinking. The Drysdales, committed to the Neo-Malthusian cause, and especially Havelock Ellis, whose book Sexual Inversion openly supported homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and was condemned by a judge as a filthy book that sort to break up the morals of the English public[31], had a large impact on the ideas of the young Margaret Sanger. They insisted that she concentrate on one issue – birth control – and leave the denunciations of capitalism, churches and marriage to others. With Havelock Ellis’s guidance, Margaret Sanger began to shape her ideas into a systematic justification for the birth control movement.[32]

 Margaret Sanger was totally committed to the sexual revolution against ‘repressive’ Christian morality. This commitment to the sexual revolution was the motivating force behind the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), founded in 1952, a vehicle that has delivered her revolutionary ideas to the whole world. She understood that for her vision of worldwide birth control to succeed, the IPPF needed to infiltrate the ideals of the sexual revolution into government organisations. The strength of the IPPF is that it is a federation of national Family Planning Associations from around the world. It acts as the conscience of the family planning movement in tackling controversial issues, such as the distribution of new methods of contraception and sex education.

 An ambition of Sanger was to see the development of an oral contraceptive that could be taken like an aspirin. In the early 1950s she encouraged geneticist Gregory Pincus to develop oral contraception and provided financial support for his research. When Pincus unveiled the Pill in 1959, he referred to it as the product of Sanger’s pioneering resolution.

 The Church stands firm against artificial birth control

In England at the start of the twentieth century there was growing concern in the Church about the activities of the ‘free love’ radicals, who were agitating for the widespread use of contraception, and the Neo-Malthusians, who were campaigning for the need to limit family size to prevent population growth.

 In response to the actions of the radicals, in 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, meeting at the Lambeth Conference, took a firm stand against contraception, which they regarded as sinful. The Conference received a report which rejected the Neo-Malthusian arguments for family restriction and concluded, ‘there is the world-danger that the great English speaking people, diminished in number and weakened in moral force, should commit the crowning infamy of race-suicide, and so fail to fulfill that high destiny to which in the Providence of God they have been manifestly called’.[33] This report had the insight to see that widespread contraception would lead to a significant reduction in the national birth rate. 

The bishops, moved by these arguments, declared: ‘the Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare’.[34]

 The sixth Lambeth Conference in 1920 again expressed its uncompromising and unqualified rejection of all forms of artificial contraception, even within marriage. Resolution 68 declared: ‘We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers – physical, moral and religious – thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.’ The resolution mentioned that the primary purpose for which marriage exists is ‘the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children’, and opposed ‘the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself...’[35]

 There is no doubt that the Christian mind of the nineteenth and first part of the twentieth century believed that artificial contraception was a moral evil and took a strong public stand on the issue. 

 Marie Stopes – mother of the contraceptive culture

In direct opposition to the teaching of the Church, Marie Stopes devoted her life to making contraception socially acceptable in Great Britain. Her mission was to teach society to be more open about sex and contraception. Married Love, published in 1918, and supposedly directed at married couples (like A pro-life guide), was unique in that it described in explicit language the sex act and promoted the use of contraception. Her views on sexual morality were consistent with her rejection of the Christian faith. In a speech at the Criterion Theatre, she claimed, ‘I am out for a much greater thing than birth control. I am out to smash the tradition of organised Christianity, and to enthrone Christ’s own tradition of wholesome, healthy, natural love towards sex life.’[36]  

 Marie felt inspired to produce a 32-page booklet, Wise Parenthood, on the technique of contraception. Her open promotion of the booklet agitated her publisher to a panic for it had been agreed that it would be directed towards young married couples. Her publisher was so deeply upset by the situation that he wrote, ‘It certainly is disgusting to me to receive furtive letters from illiterate young unmarried girls asking me to send the book along “in plain wrapping”.’[37] 

 In 1921 Marie Stopes founded the first contraceptive clinic in London. When the clinic was opened only a few small newspapers covered the event as the family newspapers considered the subject ‘inappropriate for discussion or publicity’.[38] In 1922 the editor of John Bull launched a powerful attack on the writings of Marie Stopes. The editorial noted that in the name of science ‘Dr Stopes has unloaded on to the market a series of books ­– Married Love, Wise Parenthood, Radiant Motherhood, and the like – which contain the frankest and most intimate discussion of sexual matters that has ever been permitted in this country… The whole tendency of this raging, tearing propaganda… is profoundly mischievous. Its sole practical effect, as far as I am able to judge, is to impart a knowledge of “birth control” methods to people who ought to have no use of them… and while I cannot possibly gauge the feelings of this gifted author as she sees her scientific works paraded for sale in the company of pornographic French novels and other accessories of vice, I should be wanting in candour if I did not point out the plain moral implications of these things.’[39] 

 One of Marie’s key aims was to persuade local authorities to allow advice on contraception to be given at maternity welfare centres. In 1930 the birth control campaign held a public conference that passed a resolution requesting the Ministry of Health to make contraceptive advice available to married people. Three months later the Ministry responded by sending a memorandum to maternity and child welfare authorities. However, the content of the memorandum was considered to be so sensitive that it was not sent to the press or to Local Authorities. It stressed that only in cases where there were medical grounds, where further pregnancy would be detrimental to health, could advice on contraception be given.  Nevertheless this was a major triumph for the birth control movement, for it was the thin end of the wedge. The State had taken on responsibility for providing contraceptive advice to married women, and there would be no going back. Next would be single women and, when the time was right, the State would find reasons to provide children with contraceptive advice and call it ‘safer sex’. 

 By 1930 there were a dozen or so voluntary contraceptive clinics around the country, and a number of societies promoting the cause of birth control. When the clinics decided to unite to form a national council, Marie Stopes was invited to propose the motion to establish the National Birth Control Council, which would later change its name to the Family Planning Association (FPA) in 1939. Its main function was to co-ordinate the work of a number of organisations that were involved in the struggle to promote contraception among the public. 

 The Christian U-turn on contraception

The birth control movement received a huge boost from the 1930 Lambeth Conference when the bishops of the Anglican Church, who had only ten years previously voiced moral opposition to contraception, passed a resolution that recognised that there was moral justification for birth control in certain circumstances. Between the propaganda of the birth control movement and the insistence of their advisors, some of whom were sympathetic to the aims of the eugenics movement, the Anglican bishops were placed under extreme pressure to conform to the spirit of the age. And so in August 1930, after heated debate, they voted 193 to 67, with 14 abstentions, to permit the use of contraceptives at the discretion of married couples. The 1930 resolution, a U-turn from that of 1908, read as follows: ‘Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method’, but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, ‘the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles’.[40] This resolution rocked the Christian world — it was the first time any Christian Church had dared to give support to the birth control movement. From now on the Protestant Church, with little or no theological justification, was seen to endorse the use of contraception by married couples.

 Birth control won approval among those churches that were most receptive to the doctrines of liberal theology. The morality of contraception, according to the liberal Christian mind, was a personal matter, and so the church’s position should change in the light of changing social conditions. David Kennedy in Birth Control in America concludes ‘liberal theology, with its acceptance of science and its interpretation of lay experience as one manifestation of the divine plan, joined with a romantic view of the spiritual fruits of sexuality to provide a framework within which Protestant theologians could find moral justification for contraception… Liberal Protestants further showed their debt to romantic ideas when they repeatedly decided to leave the final judgement on the morality of contraception to the individual’s assessment of his own motives.’[41] 

 Compromise within the Anglican community had moved so far that the Lambeth Conference in 1958 expressed a commitment to the ideology of family planning. ‘The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning... is a right and important factor in Christian family life. Such responsible parenthood... requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.’[42] The subtext is that a Christian couple, in deciding how they should plan their family, must take account of not only of their economic situation, but should also think of the needs of future generations by not contributing to the problems caused by ‘overpopulation’. In the mind of the bishops contraception is no longer a moral evil, but a means for practising ‘responsible parenthood’ by limiting family size, preferably to two children. Protestant Christianity had eagerly embraced ‘family planning’ as a moral good. Christians were now part of the ‘family planning’ movement.

 Contraceptives for children

Up until this point ‘family planning’ was presented as providing a service for married women wishing to control the size of their family. With the collapse of Christian opposition, the promoters of the contraceptive culture had a free hand. The next stage was to make contraception available to single women and then to children. The 1960s saw the setting up of the first Brook clinic that specialised in providing contraceptive services to under-age children. And so the pretence that contraceptives were meant for planning families was finally put to rest—Brook made it absolutely clear that their aim was to make contraception available to children under the legal age of consent, without informing their parents or GP.

 In 1970 the FPA acknowledged that most of the religious, medical and political barriers against which it had struggled for years had been overcome. ‘Concern over the great demand for abortion has focused attention on contraception as part of preventative medical care.  Many of the FPA’s former opponents, spurred on by debates over abortion and pollution, now agree on the need for a massive extension of contraception services. The Association is now allowed to advertise on television, and the Government has publicly stated that the provision of birth control is a priority task. Two new FPA clinics open each week… the once remote possibility of freely available birth control services within the NHS now seems almost inevitable.’[43]

 The optimism of the FPA was well founded. In 1974 the British Government, by an Act of Parliament, became responsible for supplying contraceptives to all, including under-age children, on the National Health Service. Contraceptives were now available free of charge to children—under-age children of 14 or 15, or even as young as 11 or 12, could go to a NHS clinic, drop-in centre or youth club to receive their free supply of contraceptives. And the most shocking aspect of the Act was that it allowed doctors to prescribe contraceptives to children without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

 The FPA rejoiced in what it regarded as a triumph for the birth control movement. Its 1974 annual report commented: ‘The FPA has worked towards this end for over 40 years and is proud of its success. The devoted work and forward-looking approach of the pioneers of the movement and of thousands of workers all over the country has achieved this aim – a completely free public service available to all. It is to our credit that birth control is now considered respectable and those seeking it responsible.’[44] The Church, however, was silent, for since it had tacitly endorsed ‘family planning’ in 1958 it had little further to say on the issue. 

 In the early 1980s Victoria Gillick, a mother of ten, courageously challenged the right of doctors to give under-age children contraceptives without their parents knowledge or consent, through a series of judicial reviews. Although the High Court rejected Mrs Gillick case, the Appeal Court ruled unanimously in her favour. Lord Justice Parker concluded that it was wholly incongruous ‘when the act of [under-age] intercourse is criminal, when permitting it to take place on one’s premises is criminal... that either the Department or the area health authority should provide facilities which would enable girls under 16 the more readily to commit such acts. It seems to me equally incongruous to assert that doctors have the right to accept the young, down, apparently, to any age, as patients, and to provide them with contraceptive advice and treatment without reference to their parents and even against their known wishes.’[45] The three judges of the Appeal Court ruled that parents have an absolute right to be consulted, and ruled that none of Mrs Gillick’s children should be given contraceptives without her consent. 

 However the Government refused to accept this verdict and immediately appealed to the Law Lords. The contraception lobby launched a massive anti-Gillick propaganda campaign, predicting a large increase in teenage pregnancies and abortion if under-age children were denied the right to free contraception without their parents’ consent. Although the use of contraception by under-age children declined by a third during the year of Mrs Gillick triumph, teenage pregnancy and abortion rates remained more or less constant.

 In October 1985, by three judges to two, the Lord Laws ruled against Gillick. And so ended one of the most amazing ideological battles in British history. The Government, using all the powers of the mass media, the machinery of officialdom, the propaganda of the contraceptive lobby and the influence of the medical profession, had won the legal battle to provide children of any age contraceptives without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The indifference of the majority of Christians to the Gillick struggle to rescue children from the influence of the contraceptive lobby spoke volumes about the compromised position of the Church.

 The contraception lobby was now free to use sex education as a vehicle for teaching under-age children about contraception. The Government’s report Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, issued to all schools in July 2000, makes it clear that, ‘Knowledge of the different types of contraception, and of access to, and availability of contraception is a major part of the Government’s strategy to reduce teenage pregnancy.’[46] Children are given instruction in using contraception, and emergency contraception, and teachers are permitted to give children confidential advice about where to obtain contraception. The most recent proposal from the Government’s Independent Advisory Group (IAG) on Teenage Pregnancy is that free condoms should be more easily accessible to children. Gill Frances, of the National Children’s Bureau, who leads the Advisory Group, envisages youth services within sports facilities, town halls or schools issuing condoms, possibly to children as young as 12.

 Sex education promotes condoms

Many parents are unaware of the vast range of sex education leaflets and pamphlets that promote condoms. Most of these materials have been produced by the FPA and Brook Advisory Centres, both of which are registered charities which receive large amounts of public money to support their work in sex education and the promotion of contraception among children.   

 The pamphlet Is Everybody Doing It? Your guide to contraception (FPA) explains that an under-age child can get contraception from a doctor, family planning clinic or sexual health clinic. ‘How old do I have to be? Any age. It doesn’t matter how old you are or whether you are male or female. Many clinics run sessions for young people. Won’t a doctor or nurse tell my parents I’m under 16? No. Even if you are under 16 doctors still have to keep anything you tell them private. Can a doctor or nurse refuse to give me contraception if I’m under 16? They can, but this is unlikely. The fact that you have asked for contraception shows that you have made a mature decision.’ The pamphlet recites the ‘safer sex’ mantra: ‘Condoms protect against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Condoms can keep both you and your partner safe [sic] and allow you to relax and enjoy sex.’[47]

 Relationships and You, a Brook booklet produced with financial support from the Department of Health and the condom manufacturer, Durex, advises teenagers that they don’t have to be in a relationship to find out what sex is all about. According to the booklet, young people should have ‘the intelligence to carry a condom. Even if you have no intention of having sex for a good while yet, it’s a smart move to be prepared. Condoms are the only form of contraception that protect against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. They can also be used along with other contraceptive methods, for extra protection.’[48] Notice the remarkable claim that, even for those who have no intention of having sex, to carry a condom is a sign of intelligence. The inference is that a virgin who does not carry condoms is not intelligent. The reason she must ‘be prepared’, even if she has no intention of having sex, is because, in the mind of the condom promoters, she has no control over her behaviour and so a sexual encounter may occur at any time.

 The campaign to promote contraception among under-age children has been driven by the Government and its partners, the Family Planning Association and Brook, both of which receive a great deal of help and support from the condom manufacturer Durex. This campaign has led to a huge increase in contraceptive use among children. Over the last three decades there has been an tenfold increase in the number of under-16s who attend a contraceptive clinic for the first time – by 2004 the number was 92 thousand, of whom 37 thousand were aged 14 or younger. And these figures do not include those who get contraception from a GP or buy them from a supermarket, or those children attending for follow-up supplies. Despite these alarming statistics, the Government is doing all in its power to increase still further the use of contraceptives among children.

 The contradiction of ‘pro-life’ contraception

In view of the appalling figures quoted above, and the raging propaganda promoting condoms among children, it is somewhat incongruous that a book published by the Christian Institute provides a picture of a Durex condom with a large green tick to indicate its ‘pro-life’ credentials. A pro-life guide describes an unused condom as ‘like a deflated balloon’ that ‘fits over the erect penis’, and simply informs the reader that the failure rate with perfect use is 2% and with typical use 15%. ‘The failure rate of this method is usually related to the motivation and experience of the user. It is most likely to fail in the young and the inexperienced.’[49] 

 The green tick of approval next to a photograph of a Durex condom suggests that the Institute is endorsing this brand. Yet Durex is one of the major organisations behind the contraceptive culture, working closely with the FPA and other organisations that promote condoms among children. It seems remarkable that the Christian Institute is unaware that its support for the condom as ‘pro-life’ makes it appear to be an ally of the condom promoters.

 Here it is necessary to challenge the Institute’s use of the term ‘pro-life contraception’. Why has the Institute associated contraceptives such as the condom, spermicides and human sterilisation with the word ‘pro-life’? In the Christian mind, a ‘pro-life’ attitude is an unqualified good, for God is the author of all life. By attaching the favourable word ‘pro-life’ to certain contraceptives the Institute is attempting to make ‘pro-life contraception’ appear to be an unqualified good.

 Yet it is fairly easy to see that ‘pro-life contraception’ is a contradiction in terms. A new life is formed at conception when the sperm of a man fertilises the ovum of a woman. So conception, not contraception, is pro-life. The purpose of contraception is to prevent the sperm fertilising the ovum. It’s aim to separate sex and reproduction—by definition, contraception prevents a new life from being conceived.  Two examples illustrate the falseness of the term ‘pro-life contraception’. To label a spermicide – the term means to kill sperm – ‘pro-life’ is to twist the use of language. We are asked to accept that a substance designed to kill sperm is ‘pro-life’! Similarly, to label human sterilization, which permanently destroys human fertility, ‘pro-life’, is an affront to our intelligence—a sterile man or woman cannot conceive a new life.

 There is no doubt that the ideology behind the contraceptive culture is deeply anti-Christian. It started with the idea of ‘free love’, progressed to ‘safer sex’ for children, and has culminated in ‘pro-life’ contraception. Its ultimate aim is to make contraception available to all, free from moral restraint. The slogan of Marie Stopes International says it all: ‘Cover the world with condoms’.  

 The fruit of the contraceptive culture

Now we must examine the fruit of the contraceptive culture. What happens to a society that embraces contraception with open arms? What happens in a society that teaches children about contraceptives and provides free access? 

 Sexual promiscuity

There has been an enormous increase in sexual activity among under-age children. In the 1950s it was rare for women to be sexually active before their 16^th birthday, whereas it is now commonplace. A national survey of sexual conduct found that a quarter of women reported having had sexual intercourse before they were sixteen years old.[50] There is no question that under-age sexual intercourse has increased substantially following the Government’s decision to provide children with free contraception. And because of contraceptive failure the UK now has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe. Half of these unwanted pregnancies end in abortion.

 Epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases

The increase in promiscuous sex has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among young people. Almost weekly headlines illustrate the shocking nature of the crisis. A parliamentary select committee has identified what it called an unprecedented crisis in sexual health. According to Prof. Michael Adler, a key adviser to the Government on sexual health, ‘It is no exaggeration that we now face a public health crisis in relation to sexual health.’  Latest statistics show that all the common STDs have more than doubled in the last decade, with the greatest rises occurring among young people. Chlamydia, which may cause infertility, is now so common that the Government is introducing a national screening programme targeted at sexually active young women.    

 Widespread cohabitation

The easy availability of contraception is one of the main factors behind the increasing tendency for couples to live together in a sexual relationship before marriage. Official statistics record the usual residence of the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage, and research has shown this to be a reasonably proxy for pre-marital cohabitation.[51] In 2002, three-quarters of all marriages in England and Wales were preceded by a period of cohabitation. Analysed by religion, the statistics show that those most likely to cohabit before marriage are Christians. Among Baptists (51%) and Church of England (58%) half have cohabited before marriage and among Catholics (73%) and Methodists (75%) about three-quarters. Those least likely to cohabit are Sikhs (6%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (7%), followed by Moslems (30%) and Jews (37%).[52] Undoubtedly, the Church’s eager embrace of the contraceptive culture is one of the main factors behind the growth of sexual immorality within the church.

 A negative fertility rate

The most obvious fruit is the decline in the national fertility rate. Since the early 1970s the fertility rate in Britain has declined steadily and is now 25 per cent below that required to replace the population by natural means. The two factors behind this decline are easy abortion and the contraceptive mentality that separates sex from reproduction. The average number of children per family is now around 1.7, which is well below the 2.1 required to replace the population. The result is fewer children and young people in society. 

 The national decline in fertility is perhaps the most important social trend of our lifetime. The consequences for schools, universities and the economy are obvious. This is one of the main reasons why there is a looming pension crisis, a crisis which will become even more acute as the number of economically active people in the population declines still further. Few people have made the link between the declining birth rate and the decline in the Church—one of the factors behind the decline in Sunday schools and youth work is the falling birth rate among Christians. Sadly, the two-child family is now the accepted norm among Christians, and some believe that the God’s command to be fruitful and multiply is no longer applicable in our modern age. As a consequence few Christians see any significance in the negative birth rate despite the fact that the Bible places great emphasis on the blessing of fertility.        

 God’s plan for human fertility

The battle over contraception is a battle between the Bible’s teaching on human fertility and dark spiritual forces in high places that oppose God. The issue of human procreation goes to the heart of what the Bible teaches about the nature and character of God, his creation of mankind, and his laws as they relate to sexual conduct, children, marriage and the family.

 When God created male and female in his own image he blessed them and said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28). The primary function served by the creation of two sexes is the procreation of children and the propagation of the race. The design of the sexual organs is obviously for this purpose and the sexual nature of mankind is fundamental to God’s creation plan. God ordained marriage immediately after he created the first man and woman, while Adam and Eve were still in the Garden of Eden. Thus in the original purposes of God, humanity is complete in man and woman, and together, as husband and wife they have the gift of procreation. The God-given mandate to be fruitful is to be fulfilled by the marriage of a man to his wife. In God’s plan, human sexuality finds its meaning in marriage and the procreation of the human race.  

 After the flood, which destroyed sinful mankind, God blessed righteous Noah and renewed the mandate to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:1). And when God established his covenant with Abraham, the father of the faithful, he promised, ‘I will make you exceedingly fruitful; I will make nations of you…’ (Genesis 17:6). And this blessing is to be both physical, in the children born to God’s people, and spiritual, in the gift of new birth by God’s grace into his kingdom. 

 God blessed the patriarch Isaac with the promise, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven…’ (Genesis 26:4). The patriarch Jacob, understanding the nature of God’s blessing, in response to Esau’s question, ‘Who are these with you?’ replied, ‘The children whom God has graciously given your servant’ (Genesis 33:5). At Bethel God spoke to Jacob, renamed him Israel and said, ‘I am God Almighty, Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body’ (Genesis 35:11).  

 And God was faithful to his promise, for in Egypt the people of Israel ‘were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong’ (Exodus 1:7). God promised Israel before they entered the Promised Land that if they would carefully follow all his laws, he would keep the covenant he swore with their fathers to bless them and increase their numbers. ‘And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb…’ (Deuteronomy 7:13).

 The psalmist reminds us that children are a blessing from God. ‘Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!’ (Psalm 127:3-5). ‘Blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labour of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots round your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord’ (Psalm 128:1-4).    

 The Bible teaches that God’s plan for his people is that they should be exceedingly fruitful. There is the example of Heman, a musician in the house of the Lord. The names of his fourteen sons are listed, ‘All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer in the words of God, to exalt his horn. For God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the direction of their father for the music in the house of the Lord’ (1 Chronicles 25:5-6). Obed-Edom, a gatekeeper in the house of the Lord, had eight sons, ‘for God blessed him’ (1 Chronicles 26:5). It is significant that the Bible mentions that God has blessed these two servants of the Lord with large families, for God desires a godly offspring (Malachi 2:15), a people who teach their children the ways of God. One of the means by which God is building his church is through the children of his people.

 Christian views on contraception

What is the relevance of these Scriptures for our day? In view of the clear biblical teaching that God desires a godly offspring, how should Christians view contraception? A common position is that as Christians are free in Christ, whatever activity Scripture does not prohibit is permissible. Therefore, as the Bible does not give us any proscription or prohibition with reference to contraception, Christians have liberty to decide for themselves what methods of contraception are acceptable. According to this view, Scripture does not forbid the rhythm method, diaphragm and the condom.[53]

 In his essay Christians and Contraception Bart Garret points to some of the problems with a permissive view. He says that while contraception may be permissible Christians should not fall into the trap of thinking that they are in control of their future. ‘Remember, Paul said that while all things are permissible, not everything is beneficial. Applied here, this means that if you cannot relinquish your future and your control of that future to God, then while birth control is ethically permissible, for you it is not beneficial. Perhaps it is time for us as a generation of young married couples to fall on our faces before a Sovereign and Good King and to ask him what we should do. It is time for us to be motivated by the desire to see God glorified and his Kingdom extended, and not by the convenience of our culture. Is birth control permissible? Yes, I think so. Is it always best? Of course not. This is a question that you must answer for yourself, in the posture of humility before our wise Father and loving Lord.’[54]        

 Norval Geldenhuys, in his book The Intimate Life, endorses the use of periodic abstinence as an acceptable method of spacing children. He answers the question about the permissibility of birth control in this way. ‘If by birth control is meant that married couples should use their common sense in spacing children—that they should strive not to beget children when their physical, financial and other circumstances do not warrant it—we wholeheartedly agree that it is permissible… When, however, birth control is practised for selfish reasons and with false motives it is to be strongly opposed.’[55] Geldenhuys concludes ‘that birth control may be applied only in those cases where couples are truly convinced that circumstances demand such a course… Children are the happiest gifts of the Creator. And the parents who wisely rear a good-sized family are the blessed of the earth.’[56]    

 In forming our view of contraception, we must understand that prior to 1930 all Protestant denominations, without exception, maintained the historic Christian position that artificial birth control is gravely wrong and a violation of God’s design for human sexuality. Perhaps in 1908 the Anglican Bishops were declaring the mind of God when they regarded the use of contraception to artificially limit family size with alarm, and called upon all Christians ‘to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare’. The events of the last hundred years have surely proved the wisdom of their prophetic warning. 

 ‘Pro-life’ contraception has no place in the Church

It is disappointing that the response of the Christian Institute to the negative national birth rate and the widespread acceptance of the two-child norm, even among Christians, is to produce a glossy booklet extolling the virtues of ‘pro-life’ contraception. Unbelievably, it has presented the worldly wisdom that flows from the Margaret Pyke Centre to God’s people as definitive advice on contraception, content to simply go along with a hollow and deceptive human philosophy that depends on the basic principles of this world. The real danger is that A pro-life guide will reinforce a contraceptive mentality in the Church as it encourages Christian pastors to promote ‘pro-life’ methods of contraception among Christian couples in premarital courses.

A disturbing thought is that A Pro-life guide probably reflects the views of a large section of evangelical Christianity. Today there is hardly any teaching on the biblical view of sexual conduct, and little acceptance that human fertility is a blessing from God. As a consequence, we are satisfied with the concept of the two-child family. Christians have become so muddled, so influenced by the spirit of the world, that we are no longer even aware of the moral issues raised by our ready acceptance of the contraceptive culture. Like the Israelites of old, we have compromised with the surrounding pagan culture. Yet the God of the Bible requires the most radical separation between his holy people and the ways of the world. We must not love the attitudes and lifestyle of the world, and this is especially so when it comes to sexual matters.

 In my opinion the Institute would do well to withdraw this book and make it clear that the concept of ‘pro-life’ contraception has no place in the Church. If this critique serves the purpose of making some Christians seriously rethink their approach to the moral issue surrounding contraception and family planning then it will be have accomplished its purpose. But of this we can be sure. If the Church takes the advice offered by Contraception: a pro-life guide into its bosom, then the glory of the Lord will depart from his people. Our God, the Holy God, will not tolerate the amoral mindset of the contraceptive culture among those he has called out to be a pure, holy people.