Open Embarrassment
Protestants against birth control offer
super-spiritual nonsense and gummed-up metaphors
by Jon Trott -
slight revisions made Aug 13 to original posted version

Why do we so love to feel guilty about sex?

Take, for instance, the little book Open Embrace (Eerdmans, 2002) by Sam and Bethany Torode. Here's a book that via a mix of guilt-inducement, cajoling, and extra-biblical spirituality, tries to Catholicize the Protestant view of sexuality. It doesn't carry the overt anti-woman flavor of the (to me at least) infamous Mary Pride book The Way Home (Crossway), a book Cornerstone was more than glad to give it's "worst book of the year" award. But that very subtlety makes Open Embrace and its anti-woman, anti-sex message all the more destructive.

The misuse of symbol leads to mucked up thinking, such as this quote from which the book's title was drawn:

As married persons, our part is to remain open to children, by becoming one flesh and refusing to compromise that union....

But every time husband and wife come together, they ought to do so in earnest, in an open embrace, withholding nothing from each other -- including their fertility. By participating in marital relations, they should be indicating their willingness to accept whatever naturally follows; during the fertile times of a woman's cycle, this may include children.

The term "becoming one flesh" is symbolized, iconified by the Torodes into sex without birth control. It is, most bluntly, their opinion which they are trying to guilt the rest of us into. Shoulds and should nots rooted in opinion (whether my opinion or that of others) are... well, opinion. But I suggest that comments such as the above are extra-biblical attempts to claim an authority they don't in reality have.

Is there any biblical support for their ideas? God did command Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and multiply...." That idea seems to be a lynchpin in the Torodes worldview regarding marriage and sex. Yet it seems obvious that if there is one commandment which humanity has in fact fulfilled, that one is it. To necessarily interpret that command given to Adam and Eve as a command given every married couple is going too far.

The Torodes state that raising children teaches a couple things they will never learn anywhere else, particularly in the realm of selflessness. True. Yet most married couples, whether using birth control or not, do desire children and (should God so bless) do have children. So what's their real point? Over and over, their point is that birth control is not just a physical barrier, but a spiritual and psychological barrier, between the husband and wife. As I will show, this argument is rooted in confusion between symbols and reality.

The protestant view on such matters has long been that it is up each married couple to work out the specifics of their sexual relationship--including what birth control measures are taken. So the issue isn't as much about avoiding having babies altogether as it is about when and by what means we may morally (being obedient to God's biblical revelation and our own consciences) do that avoiding. The Torodes say they don't believe in birth control, yet do believe in Natural Family Planning (NFP). Without using "artificial" methods, NFP (a more sophisticated version of the scientifically discredited rhythm method) helps couples "space" children. Well isn't that what birth control used by most Christian couples also does?

A Better Way. . . or a Guilt Trip

Do the authors teach that contraceptives are sinful, that is, against God's Word and will? Their comments on using non-abortive contraceptives seem carefully parsed:

We aren't concerned here with the question of whether contraception... is intrinsically evil or sinful. We would say that it's not ideal. Rather than pointing fingers, we want to point to a better way.

Note the opinion in the guise of fact above -- "We want to point to a better way." Thus begins guilt-inducement. And point fingers they do:

How does contraception alter the language of our bodies? Regardless of our intent, deliberately withholding or subverting our fertility during sex sends a message: "I am not giving myself completely to my spouse," or, "I will not accept my spouse in his entirety." When we should be saying "I do," contraception says, "I do not."

Thus conceived (pun intended), contraception is manipulated into being a denial of love, and therefore sinful. We who use artificial birth control are, the authors say, sending a message of non-acceptance, non-surrender, to our mates. There is simply no logic behind this assertion. Two people who may feel completely surrendered to one another could, if swept up in Open Embrace's rhetorical traps, condemn themselves while having done nothing wrong.

Even more pointed is the equating of contraception and abortion,

Contraception is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, and many Christians equate that silence with approval. But abortion isn't mentioned in the bible, either.

No, and neither is driving an automobile. That frivolous answer aside, I would note that abortion is in fact biblically mentioned by proxy in that human life unlawfully taken is murder. If abortion is the unlawful taking of life, abortion is murder. Therefore it is in fact mentioned often in Scripture.

Birth control is not taking a human life. It is preventing one from being conceived. And between those two sentences is all the difference in the world. Beyond that, there is no biblical logic which indicates birth control is sinful. Period.

Not according to the Torodes, however. They offer this "slippery slope" argument:

All who fight for life should take the lessons of history to heart. As long as the contraceptive mentality prevails, abortion will follow. One of the most practical steps we can take to combat abortion is to renounce contraception in our homes.

Does this sound familiar? It ought to. If "A" is allowed, then "B" will invariably follow. "If I let my kid get his ear pierced, he'll end up in a street gang" (I actually heard that one). "If I read a book by Kierkegaard, I'll end up a French existentialist who thinks God's dead." And so forth. This "slippery slope" idea is an old scare tactic, and not at all impressive either argumentatively or morally.

There is also the argument that since modern forms of birth control have only been accepted for a short time, that somehow invalidates them. A curious charge, since the Torodes' own version of birth control, NFP, also relies heavily upon modern findings and techniques. New is not equivalent to evil.

Pro-life Feminism and Birth Control

I am fervently pro-life, to the point that it is a major reason I vote for or against national candidates for political office. Yet like Christians for Biblical Equality, Feminists for Life, and others not holding to a standard white male interpretation of faith, I find myself constantly having to define the difference between being against abortion and against birth control. One is taking a human life, and therefore immoral unless it is done to save the mother's life. One is preventing a human life from coming into being, and is an act that can be profoundly moral or immoral, according to the purpose of those using it.

According to the Torodes, their introduction to natural family planning and their increasingly anti-birth control stance arose as a result of their involvement with a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC). Jesus People USA (parent ministry of Cornerstone online) also ran one of those centers during the 1980s and 1990s, and often encountered fellow pro-lifers who seamlessly folded birth control into the abortion debate just as the pro-choice movement enfolded abortion into the women's rights debate. In both cases, as far as we were concerned, this couldn't have been a more terrible error.

Is the book really anti-feminist? To be sure, this young couple tries hard to model a marriage with egalitarian tendencies. But the end picture is what one might expect when following the logic of their worldview. (1) No birth control but family planning, (2) Children, (3) The need for one parent to stay at home, as they write almost always the mother, and (4) a great falling back by the feminine from involvement outside the home.

I agree that God wants us to use and enjoy the talents he's given us, but he never promised us inexhaustible resources. He created us with limitations and placed only twenty-four hours in a day. We cannot juggle all the hats and be the best we can be at all of them. The reality is that if I choose to have a full-time career, my husband and kids will have me only part-time.

If a woman is called to become a full-time mother -- and many would say that having children virtually assures she is so called -- that calling shouldn't be belittled or thought inferior to any other call. My point here is that the focus of what is and is not any one person's, or one couple's, calling resides with that person/couple and her/their relationship with the Lord, not another person or organization of persons.

Symbols, Sin, and Secularism

As mentioned earlier, the logic of many of the Torodes' arguments rests on some serious play in the world of symbols, what a human body "means" or what sexuality "stands for." That's fine... as long as the discussion remains within biblical parameters. Even there we are each faced with the need to interpret the Word, to hear what God is saying to us individually and as a couple. Outside such parameters, it's just so much speculation, no matter how poetically put. And sooner or later, the cultural bigotry / elitism underlying such speculation is bound to show up in the Torodes' approach. This is illustrated by comments regarding Christian rock music:

Evangelicals are known for "engaging the culture." Contemporary Christian music, for example, often mimics the sound of secular music while adding Christian lyrics, as though the music conveys no message of its own. Problems arise when we begin engaging the culture and end up marrying it.

Here is where I and many of my evangelical contemporaries just will not -- thank God! -- go. A world in which even music one might otherwise listen to cannot be enjoyed because it mysteriously "conveys a message" of secularism.... a world in which sex between man and wife can't just be sex without assigning guilt in the guise of symbols, and thus symbolic meaning, that is sinister. This is utter and absolute nonsense! Secular feminists complain about Christian leaders using sexual guilt to oppress and control; this is the sort of thing that gives their complaints legitimacy.

Soren Kierkegaard warned, "Poetry is idolatry refined." Why? Poetry is that which creates beautiful symbols and meanings in anything and everything. As Christians, we must not lose track of our beleif that a reality exists apart from poetic renderings of that reality, accurate or inaccurate. We do not love the gospel story for the story's sake; we love the story because it is true. We are not to simply hear the Word, but to do it, to experience its reality in our lives.

Symbols -- icons -- can be used to point to the truth, or to lead one away from the truth. Hollywood creates beautiful lies all the time, along with some beautiful truths as well. To turn a condom -- a physical barrier between penis and vagina, sperm and egg -- into a spiritual barrier between man and wife is quite poetic. It is also false, even idolatrous. It directs our eyes, heart, and mind away from true spirituality and into a performance-based cul-del-sac. Our faith becomes works, and our marriage yet another place to find stress and guilt instead of comfort and joy.

The biblical story is simple: God made sex because he is love, he is good, and he loves us and desired man and woman love one another. Where the bodily fluids go (or are prevented from going) while a man and wife sport about is of no real interest to God. I do enjoy pondering what the body and perhaps its fluids as well might delightfully symbolize, and think it would be wonderful for all wives and husbands to enjoy pondering such things. I've even written poetry (no doubt substandard) about it myself, symbols and all. What I don't enjoy are unbiblical reasons for sexual guilt wrapped in poetry. C. S. Lewis said it best: "God is a hedonist at heart."

A Few Facts About NFP (Natural Family Planning)

I have no desire to discourage or belittle anyone using NFP happily within their marriage. Versing oneself in NFP is an interesting lesson in the feminine anatomy that both wife and husband can benefit from even if not choosing it as a birth control method. The following is specifically due to the insistence by the Torodes that NFP is somehow intrinisically more "spiritual" and/or a "way of life" for truly enlightened couples.

Consider this spiritual-sounding passage regarding using NFP (a more effective version of the so-called "rhythm method", and the method of avoiding pregnancy approved by the Torodes):

Because it requries that couples give up sex during the fertile time to avoid conception, NFP [Natural Family Planning] is based on self-sacrifice. When couples fast from sex in order to space their children, they are reminded both of the goodnes of lovemaking and of God's purposes in creating it. It's like fasting from food, which is both a spiritual discipline and a way of maintaining good health. Contraception, on the other hand, could be compared to binging and purging. It promises to satisfy our appetite for sex while ignoring its created purpose. The promise is an empty one.

The empty promise may well be that NFP has true workability. In Planned Parenthood pages cited by the Torodes as being a basically good representation of NFP, we find this summary of various NFP methods' success:

Of 100 couples who use any of these methods for one year, 20 women will become pregnant with typical use. The failure rate is higher for single women. Combining the various methods with careful and consistent use and having no unprotected vaginal intercourse during the fertile phase can give better results.

Of 100 couples who use the temperature method for one year with perfect use, two women will become pregnant.

Of 100 couples who use the cervical mucus method for one year with perfect use, three women will become pregnant.

Of 100 couples who use the calendar method for one year with perfect use, nine women will become pregnant.

Few couples, however, are able to use these methods perfectly. These methods require keeping consistent and accurate records. Some skill is required in figuring, and the margin for error depends on how accurately signs and records are interpreted and followed. It is most important that original explanations, early coaching, and frequent follow-up be done by a professional instructor or successful users. These methods work better for women whose cycles are always the same length.

So while NFP may lessen the possibilities of pregnancy, it is more of a dice-roll than one is led by the Torodes to believe.

The National Institute of Health in 2000 released a study of 213 women and 700 menstrual cycles that if accurate also creates serious doubt as to NFP's workability:

Guidelines for getting pregnant — or avoiding pregnancy — usually assume an average woman is fertile between days 10 and 17 of her menstrual cycle. But researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have demonstrated what some accidentally pregnant women may have long suspected:

Only about 30 percent of women actually have their fertile window entirely within that timespan.

In fact, the researchers found, there is hardly a day in the menstrual cycle during which some women are not potentially fertile. Women in this study were of prime reproductive age (most between 25 and 35) when the menstrual cycles are most regular. The window of fertility would be even more unpredictable for teenagers or for women approaching menopause, the NIEHS researchers said.

One NIH doctor's conclusion was blunt:

Dr. Wilcox, a physician and chief of epidemiology at NIEHS, said, "If the average healthy couple wants to get pregnant, they are just as well off to forget 'fertile windows' and simply engage in unprotected intercourse two or three times a week."

In addition, NFP requires stopping sex during certain times of the month, from between a week and ten days or more, perhaps the very times a woman in particular may be feeling the most amorous. Thus, in those cases, the wife would be defrauded of her conjugal right outlined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. She, and perhaps her husband as well, may be opened to needless sexual temptation and frustration.

Again, we do not claim NFP doesn't work for anyone. But we do suggest one progress with the greatest of caution, particularly if having a baby in the near future is not in one's plans. NFP is not my objection to Open Embrace. I would note that NFP as outlined by the Torodes has a ritualistic aspect that might appeal to those easily made prey of by religiosity.

Placing contraception within marriage in the same context as binging and purging and concluding that it is about "satisfying our need for sex while ignoring its purpose" accuses all marrieds who use birth control of being selfish and shallow. This is reminiscent of -- since we're discussing binging and purging -- Gwen Shamblin's increasingly legalistic Weighdown Workshop writings and statements. Like Shamblin (though with better literary sense and none of her anti-trinitarian teachings), the Torodes have defined spirituality using extra-bibilical measures and appearances rather than realities.

Paul's words on when to abstain from sex are pertinent here:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Cor. 7:3-5, NRSV]

Paul notes a cessation in sexual activity only for a time of prayer. He nowhere discusses birth control methods or the lack thereof, and it should be noted that the Torodes admit many birth control methods existed during that time. When to stop having sex? It's the husband's and wife's business, not anyone else's. Self-sacrifice? Sacrifice which is based upon nonbiblical concepts and even legalism is no holy sacrifice and gains one nothing.

A Christian man and wife using birth control are no less open to one another than a Christian couple choosing not to do so. In fact, according to Clifford and Joyce Penner, the use of birth control often makes a couple even more open to one another, since fear of unplanned pregnancy is greatly diminished. From the Torodes' viewpoint, we're supposed to feel guilty about times we don't want children but do want sex; I suggest we refuse such guilt as illogical false spirituality. Sex with birth control bonds a husband and wife just as tightly as sex without birth control; the real issue is mutual tenderness, regard, and love.

Is this article pseudo-biblical babble, written by a pinhead?
Email us your opinion.

Back to Cornerstone Online / Back to Jon Trott