Hodge begins his book with a brief history of contraceptive practice from antiquity to the modern age. He notes that such practices were widespread and often encouraged as a means of population control, personal choice regarding childbearing, etc. in various ancient and pre-modern cultures. I have no desire to challenge any of this history, and I find it largely irrelevant to the main points at issue. The interested reader may study this section for themselves.
Hodge moves on to begin making his case with his first argument: the argument from history, or, more accurately, from the historic teaching of the church regarding contraceptives. He starts by complaining that many modern evangelicals have forsaken tradition and exalted their own experience as the central rule and guide for interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to the teaching of Christian leaders throughout history. He states that:
According to Scripture, however, the teachers of the Church were given as gifts by the Spirit of Christ to Christians 'for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man' (Eph 4:12-13). When the Lord Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles into all truth, the promise is given to the Church's teachers, and it is only through them that the whole Church is also led into it. Individuals are not promised such directly, and we see both in history in our own day that individual, private interpretations usually lead to heresy and disunity, among Christians of all ages, instead of orthodoxy and unity.While I certainly sympathize with Hodge on this matter, and I certainly acknowledge that the Church Fathers are indispensably valuable to proper Scriptural understanding and interpretation, this position goes a few steps too far. The point of St. Paul's Ephesian remarks is that the Church has been given various individuals with various gifts, who might all work together to further God's kingdom, "attain to the unity of faith," and so on. But it simply does not follow from this that it is only through the testimony of Christian teachers that the whole Church is led into all truth. Indeed, the John 16 passage testifying to the work of the Holy Spirit in the apostles does not mean that all Christian teachers have some sort of divine seal against error, nor does it mean that the only "rightful heirs" of Scriptural interpretation are Christian teachers, as Hodge asserts several paragraphs later. While Christian teachers are necessary and important organs of the body of Christ whose duties do primarily involve Scriptural teaching and exposition, this simply does not mean that individual Christians have no duty to study and interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Clearly, this must be done with humility, caution, and submissiveness to Christ and the authorities He ordains to guide the Church, but it still must be done. Accordingly, it is not quite right to say, as Hodge does, that "contrasting the Church's [historic] teaching on contraception with the world's philosophy is the first step in understanding that Christians ought to be in the world but not of the world." On the contrary, the first step in understanding that truth is contrasting what the Bible has to say about contraception with the world's philosophy. Valuable as our faithful predecessors are, they are not the infallible, all-sufficient rule of faith and life that Scripture is. On Scripture our case one way or the other must chiefly rest, not tradition.
Another way to see this point is just to consider the massive amount of disagreement that has existed and still exists between different Christian teachers. There have historically been significant and profound divisions amongst the Fathers regarding various doctrinal matters, and one need only look at the sheer number of different Christian denominations to see that Hodge's position does not make any sense. As the adage goes, all men are liars, and this includes Christian teachers. At some point, a Christian has to make a conscientious decision as to what tradition conveys the traditions of the faith the best (here I mean tradition considered broadly, including the Fathers, Scripture, the councils, and so on). For myself, this was the Lutheranism. For others, it is Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Calvinism, Anglicanism, or Evangelicalism, which Hodge himself endorses. In any case, Hodge's conception of Church authority would be more befitting of a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and it is quite inconsistent with the evangelical faith he purports to believe in.
He continues to argue that the historic Church must be a necessary guide in Scriptural interpretation, and that "this means the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture as well, since that is not only the necessary foundation for preaching it but also the nature of the gifts given to it." He goes on to attribute St. Paul's 1 Timothy 3:15 statement to the church. It is, of course, true that the historic Church is an important, perhaps even necessary, guide in the interpretation of Scripture. Apostolic authority was certainly indispensable in the first century, long before the Scriptural canon was "officially" fixed. But again, it does not follow from this that the Church has some sort of special right to read and interpret what the Bible says. Do I need the Fathers to tell me that God is Trinitarian? Do I need the councils to tell me that I am saved by faith alone? Certainly not! Furthermore, the Church's status as the pillar and bulwark of the truth consists of it being the home and bearer of the living Gospel, not a monolithic authority which alone may judge the Scriptures. The Church is by no means infallible either. It can certainly fail, and it often has. We must remember that it is composed of people, who as Scripture clearly teaches, are deeply flawed and inherently inclined toward all evil.
It is also helpful to consider what the Church actually is. The Church consists of those who gather around Word and Sacrament. It consists merely of Christians, not of any definite political structure. As such, all Christians, be they Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, or Anglican, compose the Church. Given this fact, is it not clear that all members of the Church partake of the authority to interpret Scripture? Perhaps it might be objected that only Christians who have been ordained as teachers and ministers may do this. But while the Office of the Holy Ministry has been established by God for teaching and preaching, nowhere in Scripture is the sole authority to teach and interpret placed on the holders of that Office. Of course, practical considerations may prevent ordinary laypeople from performing much preaching/teaching (those unlearned in good doctrine may lead others astray), but this does nothing to delegitimize such a thing in principle.
Finally, a point to Hodge's claim that "if an individual Christian, or even an era of Christians, should contradict the theology or morals handed down by the entire collective of historic orthodox Christian teachers before it, then one should have overwhelming biblical evidence, with great theological support, in order to annul such a teaching, and even then do so with fear and trembling." Hodge proceeds from this declaration to assert that the Church is ultimately infallible, such that it cannot fail in its mission to convey the message of God accurately. But this is not consonant with the principle of Sola Scriptura at all. According to Sola Scriptura, the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and life. Tradition, the Church, reason, and so on are not infallible, period. Because of this, it is incorrect to place such a strong presumption in favor of even the entire collective of historic orthodox Christian teachers, especially for issues as peripheral and Scripturally scant as the morality of contraception. While it must be stressed that tradition is valuable and that defying it mustn't be done without good cause, it is also true that unless a doctrine is taught in Scripture itself, it is a mere doctrine of man, no matter how many historic orthodox Christian teachers endorse it. The Fathers are just as fallible together as they are alone.
So Hodge's views on the Church, teaching authority, the role of tradition in interpreting Scripture, and the relationship of individual Christians to the Bible and biblical interpretation, are seriously flawed. Hodge lapses into rhetoric more fitting of Papism than orthodox Evangelicalism. Against his excesses, it must be emphasized that while tradition contains much beautiful truth and good teaching, it also contains much falsehood and confusion. And above all else, where tradition does not actually exposit Scripture itself, it is nothing more than human opinion, which we would do well to remember Jesus Christ's admonitions against (see Matthew 15:9). These are key things to keep in mind when it comes to the historic Church's position on contraception, which is indeed overwhelmingly negative.
Hodge now moves on to consider the attitude of the early Church toward contraception. He identifies one of the chief argument of the Fathers against contraception as one which argues that contraceptive acts are against nature, and are therefore immoral. He goes on to cite several different ancient writers who advocate this argument, which is supposed to be rooted in Genesis 1-2. However, there is no force behind it whatsoever, considered either biblically or rationally. For while the use of contraception may be considered to be "against nature" in the sense that it inhibits one of the natural purposes of sexual activity, namely procreation, this simply does not mean that it is wrong. It is likewise incorrect to insist that procreation is the primary end of all sexual endeavor. There is no reason to debase the other ends of sexual activity (viz. intimacy, bonding, union, and pleasure) as inferior to the end of procreation. While sex certainly carries with it special meaning and divine purposefulness as the means whereby other humans are created, it by no means is immoral or illegitimate if it practiced such that no children may be conceived through it (assuming it is otherwise performed acceptably). Genesis 1-2 say nothing to the effect that the primary purpose of sex and marriage is procreation either. In fact, Genesis 2 highlights a very specific reason as to why God made humanity man and woman: because it was not good for man to be alone (see Genesis 2:18ff). Here is a direct reference to companionship being a chief end of marriage: procreation is not addressed in this passage at all (except perhaps implicitly in verse 24).
Hodge also identifies Romans 1:26-27 as a key passage against "unproductive" sexual acts. But that passage is directed against the "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men," who do such obviously wicked things as suppressing divine truth, embracing futility and darkness of heart, practicing idolatry, and so on. In response to this deep depravity, Pauls speaks of God "[giving] them up to uncleanliness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves" and "giving them up to their vile passions" in which the natural, heterosexual use of the genitals was exchanged for shameful homosexuality. There is not a trace in Paul's discourse of an "argument from nature" in which the "norms of human behavior" are derived from the "divine norms of the universe," which are "communicated at creation" and "prescribed through special revelation." These ridiculous claims cannot be derived from Paul's discussion here at all, and the passage in question is therefore inadequate to demonstrate the supposed evils of contraception. So, the purpose of the sexual act is broader than just procreation, and it is in no way a "violation" of God's will or purposes to engage in such activity for other ends, particularly where children cannot result.
Another argument that Hodge identifies as one of the chief patristic censures of contraception is that it is essentially on par with murder. Again, he cites several different writers who forward such rhetoric. But again, this argument does not make any sense. Murder by its definition involves the premeditated, unlawful, malign killing of one human being by another. Abortion obviously fits into this category. But contraception? Not at all. It is clearly impossible in principle to murder someone who does not even exist. Preventing a human being from being formed does not constitute murder or any sort of injustice against anyone at all, precisely because the "potential" human being in question is not actually a human being. Since potential humans do not actually exist, it is asinine to ascribe rights to them or to suppose that one owes duties to them to bring them into existence, or anything to that effect.
On page 20 Hodge argues that both the Didache and the Epistle to Barnabus condemn birth control. He notes the Didache's censure against the use of pharmakeia: "drugs," "philters," or "potions" (see Didache 2:2), and both the Didache's and the Epistle's references to those who are "murderers of children, corrupters of the creatures (or handiwork) of God" (see Didache 5:2 and Barnabus 20:2). He insists that these references are most probably referring to oral contraceptives and that those who "corrupt the creatures of God" are taking oral contraceptives to prevent the formation of new humans. Now, this is very much a stretch and is incredibly speculative. The word "philter," which is used in the translation I link to above, has connotations correlating more to love potions than to contraception. Furthermore, it is baseless to attribute the association of murder with contraception to the above texts. The Didache and the Epistle simply do not identify the "murder of children" and the "corruption of God's creatures" with contraception at all. Hodge states that the word plasma, which refers to the stuff out of which humans are made, and which the Didache and Epistle use to denote God's "creatures" or "handiwork," is chiefly used by the Fathers to denote the physical creation of humans, and therefore the corruption of the plasma is most plausibly referring to contraception. But, it is again just speculation to foist such an interpretation on the respective texts. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the said corruption of the material from which humans are formed concerns abortion? Indeed, abortion would be a much more fitting candidate for that sort of "corrupting." How could destroying a child in the very womb not be considered a corruption of the human form? Of course, the murder of children and the aforementioned corruption are listed as two separate vices, but the same act could be referred to by both. Abortion is not only murder, but it also involves the corruption of God's creatures. In any case, Hodge makes extremely question-begging assumptions about what the texts in question are actually trying to condemn, and he does nothing to make his position any more believable.
In commenting on Augustine's censure of contraception, Hodge argues that the historic Christian position is that all sexual acts must be oriented toward procreation, thereby ruling out natural family planning methods such as those advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. He notes an analogy that Augustine makes between the natural desires for food and for sex: both may be used to worship and honor God, but both may be used in an "unreasonable and unlawful," and therefore evil, manner. He goes on to reference the cultural mandate which God issues to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28. He says:
Augustine is careful to say that not all desire is bad, but that a desire that is "unreasonable and unlawful" is evil. What he means by "unreasonable and unlawful" is that it does not seek to accord itself with the mandate of God at creation and therefore does not seek to be an act of worship of God, but of the self. It does not take a reasonable direction to fulfill God's purposes through the sexual act but instead seeks only to satisfy a self-worshipping urge and is devoid of any biblical worship or meaning. For this reason, the pagan religions were filled with people who saw sex this way, since the aim of pagan religion is self satisfaction and having sensual experiences in order to attain higher levels of self. In contrast to this, therefore, the Patristic argument is God-centered; it first asks whether God is pleased, and only secondarily concerns itself with whether the self is pleased.Now, a number of things need to be addressed with regard to this entire discourse. Firstly, Augustine's dour views on marriage and sexuality need to be substantiated with Scripture and reasoned argument. As I have noted above, these patristic ideas, ingrained they may have been in many past Christians' minds, are not reasonable. God's purposes for marriage and the sexual act involve more than merely procreation: there is an important sense in which sex and marriage are intended to provide companionship and a cure for natural desire just as much as they are intended to allow for childbearing (see Song of Songs, Genesis 2:18-23, 1 Cor. 7:9, Mat. 19:11-12). It is just not true that the desire for sex without children is evil, unreasonable, and unlawful. And furthermore: Hodge here assumes the Genesis 1:28 mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" involves an inviolable command that God issues to every human being through Adam and Eve. But this does not seem to be the case; the words of God issued there seem to be more indicative of a blessing that a true command. This can be especially seen by comparing the other places in Scripture where the alleged mandate occurs: Genesis 9:1,7 and 35:11. In both cases, Noah and Jacob are blessed by God, just like Adam and Eve, before they are commissioned to be fruitful and multiply. It makes much more sense to take the imperative of Genesis 1:28 as a blessing, an encouragement, and a divine gift instead of a hard and fast requirement. It is especially important to note that it, in any case, is only ever issued by God at key times to key individuals; it is unreasonable to suppose that every Christian alive is bound by a command to reproduce (this is proved especially from the exhortations to celibacy present in Matthew 19 and 1 Cor. 7). Thirdly, it is ridiculously presumptuous and unfair to attribute self-worship and defiance of God's law to those who use contraception. Perhaps in some cases this may be so, but there are regardless very many well-meaning Christians who do use birth control in good conscience, and it is wrong to attribute such malice to them. Finally, Hodge's entire discourse here is extremely question-begging. Why is it wrong to decide for personal, emotional, financial, or whatever other serious reason not to "accord oneself with the mandate of God at creation"? What exactly makes inhibition of conception an act of self-worship? Why could not a couple use contraception prayerfully and with deep reverence for God's sovereignty and will for them? Why are such contraceptive acts "devoid of all biblical worship and meaning"? And how is it intrinsically self-centered to choose to inhibit one's body from producing children? If the use of contraception is self-centered and Godless, then so must be every single form of entertainment one might pursue because he enjoys it. It does not follow from a desire not being in accordance with the cultural mandate that it is not an act of worship of God. It is not true that desires which do not aim to specifically fulfill the purpose of procreation do not fulfill God's will or purposes at all. And it is a false dichotomy to suppose that sex that is not oriented toward reproduction must be self-worshipping, against God's will, and devoid of holy reverence.
Unfortunately, Hodge answers none of the questions he begs. He merely continues to set forth the historic patristic opinion and to parrot the conclusions which the various theologians that he quotes reach.
Hodge ends his lengthy discussion with a quotation from C.S. Lewis to the effect that birth control is an unacceptable extension of Man's power over nature. Lewis argues that utilizing contraception places later generations at the behest of earlier ones, so to speak. Hodge chimes in with the claim that contraception is part of humanity's "ascent in exalting and worshipping himself as God (i.e. idolatry)," and that "an individual who practices such is taking a position that belongs only to God and seeking control over whether a future person is allowed to come into existence." But this is all utter nonsense. Indeed, earlier generations obviously do affect future ones in how they choose to use contraception, and in how they choose to act in general. But this does not mean that those earlier generations are embarking on some idolatrous ascent to godhood, or that they seek some sort of unholy control over what is properly governed only by God. The use of birth control to prevent conception in no way "takes over God's position" as arbiter over whether a given potential person will come into existence. That would be like insisting that woodworking artisans usurp the power of God over creation by endeavoring to shape wood into figures of their choosing. Just as carving wood does not involve any sort of presumption over how wood is "allowed" to look, using contraceptives does not involve any sort of presumption over whether any person is "allowed" to exist. It also must be emphasized again that potential persons are not persons, and that one therefore does not "usurp" God's prerogative powers, or violate anyone's rights, in deciding not to actualize the potential of a person to begin to exist. And it is precisely because potential persons do not exist that it is senseless and wrong to treat contraception as an exercise of power over anyone.
In addition to this, we must keep in mind that God gives humans much freedom (within many limits of course) to determine how they live their lives and which choices they make. The Christian life is not one which God strictly orchestrates every step of the way. Proverbs 3:6 states that the Lord shall direct our paths, not determine them. God is our guide, teacher, and leader, not our puppetmaster. And what this means with regard to contraception is that Christians do have real freedom to decide if, when, and how they would like to proceed with conception and child-rearing. Let the reader not misunderstand me to be saying that sex should be practiced by Christians autonomously, without consulting God. Certainly, that is a must; God must be the Lord of every aspect of Christian life, and this includes marital and sexual aspects. But, absent of any explicit divine command to the contrary, couples are free to choose whether they would like to bring children into the world or abstain from doing so. It is my belief that God affords us this freedom, just as He affords us the freedom to bring our powers to bear on the world, to engage in the relationships we choose, to delight in various hobbies and passions, to affect others around us, and to shape the future of the world itself. None of this involves idolatry, blasphemy, or vice, but is rather the mere expression of human freedom. Hodge unfairly and falsely assumes that contraception must always involve self-exaltation, idolatry, blasphemy, and grave sin, a charge that is utterly unsubstantiated regardless of what Augustine or Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria may have argued in the past. Even if a given human action is performed in such a way that it does not accord with God's overarching motives or intentions for how the world should work does not mean that the action positively violates God's will. Contraception would only be truly immoral if God's will and purposes were such that sex should only be performed in view of conception, and that conception is the only legitimate purpose of sex. But as I have argued above, this is just not the case.
Hodge ends his historical argument with a long list of Christian teachers who are apparently representative of the Church's long history of condemning contraception. He does not cite any works of theirs in which they condemn contraception, nor the context in which that condemnation is issued; he merely lists their names. I am not particularly interested to scour the works of all of the listed individuals to determine what their specific views were on the matter. I will simply end this part of my refutation by restating what I have been arguing throughout this paper: the consensus of the historic Christian church does nothing in itself to establish the immorality of contraception and contraceptive practices, and the arguments set forth by many of the Christian teachers of the past against them have no force. I will consider it here resolved that Hodge's historical argument fails.
ADDENDUM
A little more discussion is in order when it comes to the final section in the first chapter of Hodge's book, in which he delivers an analysis of the circumstances and factors leading up to the current consensus on the morality of birth control. Hodge insists that several dispositional factors have contributed to the views currently held by evangelicals regarding contraception: hedonism, romanticism, relativism, and naturalism. I will briefly discuss Hodge's discourse on each of these and show that his views are quite mistaken on the issues in question.
Hodge starts with hedonism, which he defines as the pursuit of "pleasure for pleasure's sake." In Hodge's words, hedonism holds that "the only purpose in pleasure is that one has pleasure." But this is not what hedonism actually is. On the contrary, hedonism is a philosophical viewpoint that holds pleasure to be the highest human good and the proper aim of human life. This may not seem to make much of a difference, but it is important to define one's terms properly. Hodge continues on to argue that it is morally impermissible to do anything only or primarily because one enjoys it. He asserts that the primary purpose of doing anything needs to be because we seek God's purposes through it, and that pleasure must be viewed be a result of such doing. This is completely ridiculous. Does Hodge really think that I, when eating a piece of cake, must "seek God's purposes through it" as opposed to doing it just because I happen to enjoy eating cake? Does he really suppose that going for a walk because I appreciate nature is wrong, and that I must actually intend to further God's kingdom in some deeper way through that act? Of course, it is not ethical to flagrantly enjoy things which God wills us not to. But when it comes to morally neutral things like watching football, eating certain foods, and enjoying nature, Hodge's position is radically austere and exceedingly implausible (passages like Eccl. 9:9 and all of Song of Songs seem to indicate that God wants us to pursue pleasure). Furthermore, he provides no Scriptural reasoning to support his views. He does not even reference any Fathers in his assertion that the Church has historically held that enjoyment cannot be the sole or primary reason for partaking of something. Obviously much more can be said about this issue, but due to limits of space, I will leave my discussion here. Hodge presents yet more unsubstantiated positions which he ought to provide more justification for.
He continues on to discuss romanticism, which he understands (with regard to relationships) as promoting the idea of "spiritual connection" between persons, which is experienced through emotion. Hodge seems to be saying that romanticism aims to supersede the divine purposes in the sexual act by elevating the emotional connections involved in it to a quasi-divine status (see p. 42). He goes on to attribute atheistic and self-worshipping presuppositions to such an attitude. Again, he does not offer any justification for the idea that fruitfulness needs to be the primary motive behind individuals engaging in coitus, and his attempt to link romanticism with self-worship and atheism is confused and not necessarily true. While I certainly do not mean to condone romanticism here, it is important not to condemn a viewpoint for vices it does not typify.
Lastly, Hodge discusses naturalism: the view that the universe in which we live is all there is (strangely, Hodge includes "non-interventionist" forms of theism like deism into his definition of naturalism), and relativism: the view that there is no fact of the matter regarding such things as morals, Scripture, and the purpose of sex, and that it is up to individuals to determine what is "true" for them on those matters. I take no issue with his brief discussions of these two phenomena, aside from the dubious rhetoric he employs against modern evangelicalism.
Moving on from this, Hodge lists several common arguments for contraceptive use by Christians and provides a table in which he categorizes them according to the above-delineated heretical presuppositions which he thinks they employ (see pp. 44-45). Of those five arguments, I would regard the first three as having some measure of validity, and I find Hodge's attribution of things like relativism and naturalism to those arguments to be incorrect and baseless. How exactly does stewardship of the gifts God gives us presuppose atheism or moral subjectivism? Again, Hodge does not say. Given that the burden of proof properly lies on him to demonstrate that the arguments he lists exemplify various false presuppositions, it suffices to say that he fails in his endeavor here.
Finally, Hodge discusses the history of how Christian views on contraception changed from what they used to be, and how this change centered on the Lambeth Conference of 1930. I am not particularly interested in the deliverances of Anglican conciliar resolutions, so I will merely highlight the inaccuracy of Hodge's claims to the effect that the changing views reflected a reappraisal from the "Christian theocentric concept" to the "romantic anthropocentric concept." Unfortunately for Hodge, it is just not that simple. There were many factors that played into why the resolutions of the 1930 Lambeth Conference were the way they were, including political pressures (chiefly from Margaret Sanger's efforts), the interests and motivations of the broader Church of England, and likely some serious reflection on the role of birth control in a rapidly changing world. It is unfair and false to attribute anthropocentrism and a lack of concern for God's will to all advocates of birth control. In fact, a key contention of those advocates is that God's will can be positively fulfilled with regard to marriage and the sexual act without procreation. It is quite true, contra Patrick Ward (see the footnote on p. 48), that the spirituality of the sexual act can involve more than God's action in creating a human being. God's purposes for our human emotions, flawed as they may be, must not be diminished. Indeed, it would be quite odd if God gave us the ability to feel happiness, joy, delight, intimacy, pleasure, connection, and other "sensuous" experiences if they served no spiritual purpose other than to be conquered, suppressed, and denounced.
In addition, Hodge's association of naturalistic, romanticistic, and relativistic presuppositions to the Lambeth decision is foolish. The conference did affirm that controlling if and when a human would be conceived did not involve rebellion against God, but this just doesn't reflect the idea that the conception process is "purely a human event." The conference did affirm that there were other purposes to the sexual act than procreation, but this just doesn't reflect the idea that emotional connections have some sort of divine status as "spiritual" union. And the conference did affirm that individual Christians could make legitimate decisions (within limits) regarding childbearing, but this just doesn't reflect the idea that there are no absolute norms of sexual conduct. Hodge begs all the important questions here.
Now we can see that further consideration of the circumstances leading up to the broad change of opinion with regard to contraception in the Christian Church, while certainly challenging and troubling, does not necessarily commit one to a repudiation of all contraceptive practice. Hodge's arguments are unsuccessful in demonstrating the essential immorality of it, and while he raises important questions and issues that are so often neglected in today's Church, his views provide no solution to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment