Protestants rethinking contraception: inconsistency of thought

In A Hard Pill to Swallow (at Christianity Today online), Agnieszka Tennant writes about her change of mind regarding the birth-control pill. I can appreciate the transformation of her thought, but find her tangling-together of many separate issues itself hard to swallow. I also note an inconsistency of thought regarding “opennes to life” that, surprisingly, appears consistent among those who support the practice of natural family planning.

Of her use of the Pill, Tennant asks,

What did my daily habit say about my faith in the One who reduced himself first to a cell, then two, then 128, then 256 and more, then to a defenseless baby—and whose door is always open for helpless intruders like me? Could the little pill have stood for more than just a chance to get a fiscally responsible life before opening it up to stinky diapers? Could Mircette have changed not just the hormonal makeup of my cells, but also what cannot be seen under a microscope? Could it have served as one more safety lock on the door not just to my womb, but also to my figure, my marriage, my home, my career, my gym routine?
God is in these details.

Yes, God is in the details, but what exactly constitutes a detail, and why lump all of these “details” together as if they are of equal consideration? They’re not.

(Tennant’s suggestion that the Pill has an almost mystical influence is interesting; do certain wishes lead a woman to go on the Pill, or do its effects influence a woman’s wishes...or both?)

It’s one thing to eschew artificial contraception for reasons of bringing sex and conception as its natural consequence closer together, but it’s another to object to the Pill on the grounds that it may actually cause the demise of a fertilized ova due to inhospitable conditions in the womb. Serge at Imago Dei has written a detailed post examining this very issue in Can a Christian Family Ethically Use “The Pill”? In it, he certainly does not fit Tennant’s characterization that

...for every God-fearing, pro-life physician who opposes the pill, there seem to be at least three who embrace it. They point out that there isn't enough research and that we're merely talking about a potential tiny little abortion—and an involuntary one at that.

From what I’ve seen of his writing, Serge opposes abortion altogether, no matter the size or whether voluntary or not. Size and cause are not the issue; the issue is whether or not the womb could possibly be inhospitable, even 1/1000% of the time, to a fertilized ovum due to use of the Pill.

I believe that Tennant’s conclusion goes a little beyond the evidence (or lack thereof), though I greatly respect (and agree with) her wish to avoid any possibility of causing the demise of an embryo. Of her discomfort with this aspect of the Pill, Tennant says:

This sense of discomfort never evolved into an absolute dogma: I still wouldn't say that taking contraceptives is a sin. But I questioned the assumptions I found underneath my pill popping.

I wonder why she would say this if she truly believes that there’s a good chance that the Pill may cause an early abortion. The sixth commandment states, “You shall not murder.” If there is a chance that the Pill may cause the death of an embryo, then what would be the problem with calling its use a possible sin? Calling a spade a spade (or a sin a sin) is not the same as deciding everyone’s personal morality for them; each person alone is accountable to God for his/her own thoughts and actions.

I don’t support the ostensible hesitation to speak of what is right and wrong for the reason that it might “impinge” upon someone else, that I see among Christians. Rights and wrongs are obviously a part of life, and in order to be true to Christ, Christians must accept the Decalogue (as well as other instruction given in Scripture) as God-given. Distinction must be made among “absolute” right and wrong, “personal” right and wrong, and matters that are not clear. But there is a human propensity to try to obfuscate or deny what is clear, and Christians are no exception (I include myself in both the “human” and “Christian” categories). But to declare what is clearly right or wrong is not also to insist that everyone must make the right decisions about everything, because of course not even the most pious of Christians (which would not include me) can do this. Allowing one another space and individual accountability does not equate with shutting up about (or pussy-footing around) truth. Regarding the commandment not to commit adultery, we wouldn’t say, “Well, having sex with someone who isn’t your spouse is a sin, but I’m not going to call it a sin because to do so might offend your desire to decide for yourself”...would we? Or should we?

I understand that someone may wish to be humble and therefore only speak of what they themselves have learned, in the spirit of saying, “This is my personal story; I offer it to you for whatever benefit it may have for you,” and I appreciate that sentiment very much. However, most of the time when someone does this, it seems that in truth they hold quite firmly to opinions of right and wrong (in a more absolute sense) that still come out in what they say. In the case of Tennant’s article, she makes somewhat hyperbolic (and contradictory) statements in the midst of sharing her thoughts (such as the characterization of pro-life physicians quoted above; saying that [on the Pill] “I could have sex whenever I wanted, without fear that pregnancy would impose...” (The Pill is not 100% effective, as she states elsewhere in the article; surely she was aware of that while using it?), and “...I cheated on the Pill and everything it stood for” (this is not true, for she states, near the end of the article, that she and her husband are currently taking steps to prevent conception of a child).

Tennant speaks of matters of convenience regarding reasons people use birth control/contraception/family planning, and indeed these must be examined for legitimacy. I do not believe that all matters of wishing to limit one’s reproduction come under this category, however. Neither does the Catholic Church, which is why it allows natural family planning (which Tennant acknowledges, accepts, and practices). Strangely, she speaks both against and in favor of conception-control at the same time. First, she shares that after working on a piece by the Torodes, a couple who practice no family planning whatsoever,

...gradually, my reservations [about giving up the “security” of the Pill] gave way to fascination with the authors' reckless surrender.

Then Tennant explains that her decision to stop using the Pill was clinched by a talk with Amy Laura Hall. (I have posted commentary on another of Hall’s interviews.)

Why, she [Hall] asked, do we feel the need to perfectly time and fit children into our busy schedules? Is this a Christian instinct?

If not, then why do so many practice NFP, which obviously is done because some feel the need to “time” and “fit” children into their lives and families in some way? NFP certainly does not represent a “reckless surrender” of one’s reproductive capacities to God.

I do agree with Hall’s assessment of our culture and decry it as she does:

"Only in a small number of cultures do we have the idea that adults should do their work, worship, and entertainment without the presence of children," she says.

Our culture is certainly deficient in its welcome and support of children, and this is something that must be reckoned with in regards to culpability. As I said in the above-linked post, one can only fight City Hall so much. One must live within the culture one is a part of because we are all dependent on our culture for our well-being and livelihood in many ways, and to deny this is to deny reality. Many people do live “alternative lifestyles” very successfully but not everyone can do so in the same ways due to circumstances and situations beyond their control.

Here is the major inconsistency in Tennant’s position:

Since his church members have got this NFP thing together, my husband and I took the Catholic Couple-to-Couple League's training course. NFP is no longer our grandmothers' calendar roulette. It can be tricky to master, but when properly applied, it can be 99 percent effective. Let me define "effective." In addition to bringing husbands and wives closer, NFP is great for planning pregnancy (no, I don't say this facetiously) as well as for delaying it.

But you never know.

And in this not knowing, we remain open. Consistent life ethicist that she is, Hall taught me that being pro-life isn't only about opposing surgical abortion. It's about opening ourselves to the risk and mess and uncertainty that accompany any God-sent guest we allow into our lives. The least we can do is leave our doors unlocked. Like Rahab did for the spies. Like Mary did for Jesus.

Tennant herself acknowledges in the article that “breakthrough” ovulation occurs with use of the Pill, and other forms of artificial contraception have “failure rates” as well. So, to compare the effectiveness of NFP as a method of contraception favorably with the effectiveness of artificial contraception yet at the same time assert that NFP “allows for openness to life” while artificial contraception does not is to state a contradiction! NFP may allow for a small percentage more “openness” than artificial methods of contraception, but to state that one is “open to life” while avoiding sexual intercourse during periods of fertility is to state an untruth.

This is how Tennant puts it:

It's one thing to get off the pill and another to be actively trying to conceive. Leaving my door unlocked doesn't necessarily mean that I must stand in the street, asking passersby to come in, right? I believe in free will. And in a Christian's right to use condoms and/or natural family planning (NFP). For a time that my husband and I will determine, we feel free not to solicit visitors.

Sounds to me like she’s trying to have her cake and eat it too. Which is her prerogative, of course, and perhaps represents a step, in her mind, toward giving up a measure of control of her (and her husband’s) reproduction. But I question the actual hard-and-fast, quantifiable difference in “openness to life” using NFP as opposed to the Pill for those who have the same purposes in using either method, i.e., “family planning.” (Yes, use of NFP may lead to somewhat more “openness to life,” and it is true that a couple must be more actively deliberate about avoiding conception when practicing NFP than when relying on the Pill, but still, said couples’ purposes in using either method are essentially the same.)

Though proponents of NFP will deny that this is the thinking of most users of NFP, the fact is that what Tennant says of the Pill can also be said of NFP:

What [does using NFP] say about my faith in the One who reduced himself first to a cell, then two, then 128, then 256 and more, then to a defenseless baby—and whose door is always open for helpless intruders like me? Could [NFP stand] for more than just a chance to get a fiscally responsible life before opening it up to stinky diapers? Could [it change] what cannot be seen under a microscope? Could it [serve] as one more safety lock on the door not just to my womb, but also to my figure, my marriage, my home, my career, my gym routine? (emphasis added)