What do the Pill manufacturers say?
Searle
I asked an excellent pro-life physician, and a good friend, to call a birth control manufacturer concerning the statements in their inserts. He contacted Searle, whose package insert for their pill Demulen, says "alterations in the . . . endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation) may also contribute to the contraceptive effectiveness." (Note that Searle twice uses the term "may," in contrast to Ortho and Wyeth, which in their information in The PDR state the same effect as a fact rather than a possibility.)
Here is part of a letter dated February 13, 1997, written by Barbara Struthers, Searle's Director of Healthcare Information Services, to my pro-life physician friend:
Thank you for your recent request for information regarding whether oral contraceptives are abortifacients . . . . One of the possible mechanisms listed in the labeling is "changes in the endometrium which may reduce the likelihood of implantation." This is a theoretical mechanism only and is not based upon experimental evidence, but upon the histologic appearance of the endometrium. However, as noted by Goldzieher, the altered endometrium is still capable of sustaining nidation, as shown by pregnancies occurring in cycles with only a few or no tablet omissions.
Dr. Struthers (PhD) makes a valid point that the Pill's effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. But in my research I never found anyone who claimed they always do. The issue is whether they sometimes do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does. In fact, whether it's RU-486, Norplant, the mini-pill or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often and usually. Thus, the point that the Pill doesn't always prevent implantation is true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, which Searle's own literature indicates. (Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof or are left alone by swimming pools don't always get killed, but this hardly proves these practices are safe and do not result in fatalities.)
Dr. Struthers goes on to say, "It is unlikely that OCs would decrease the likelihood of endometrial implantation, particularly when one appreciates that the blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting in various 'hostile' sites, e.g. the Fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum."
Her point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. True enough -- but, again, no one is saying this doesn't happen. The question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child's ability to implant in the right place. (Whether the child implants in the wrong place or fails to implant in the right one, the result is the same -- death. But while in the first case the death is not caused by a human agent, in the second case -- by taking the Pill -- it can be.)
Dr. Struthers then says, "Used as directed, the hormone level in modern OCs is simply too low to cause interception, that is, failure of the blastocyst to implant."
If this is true, then why does the company's own literature -- produced by their researchers and submitted to the FDA, the medical community, and the public -- suggest the contrary? And why do dozens and dozens of scientific and medical sources I am drawing from in this article definitively state the contrary? If Dr. Struthers is right, not just some but all of these other sources have to be wrong.
Dr. Struthers further states, "Until the blastocyst implants . . . there would be no loss of an embryo and, therefore, no abortion. Thus, the theoretical mechanism of reduced likelihood of implantation by whatever means would not be considered an abortion by any biological definition."
Now we cut to the heart of her presuppositions. Having said implantation won't be pevented, she then says even if it is (why add this if it never happens?), the result isn't really an abortion. This statement is profound both in its breadth and its inaccuracy. It's a classic logic-class-illustration of faulty reasoning. It's like saying "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome does not affect toddlers; therefore, it does not involve the deaths of human beings." Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence -- that infants are not people because they are pre-toddlers. In exactly the same way Dr. Struthers begs the question by assuming -- without bothering to provide any evidence (there is none) for this assumption -- that pre-embryo human beings are not really human beings.
But if human life does begin at conception, which is the overwhelming biological (not to mention biblical) consensus, then causing the death of a "blastocyst" is just as much an abortion as causing the death (or she puts it, "loss") of an "embryo." The days-old individual is a smaller and younger person than the embryo, but he or she is no less a person in the sight of God who created him. (People do not get more human as they get older and bigger -- if they did, toddlers would be more human than infants, adolescents more human than toddlers, adults more human than adolescents and professional basketball players more human than anyone.)
Dr. Struthers says the "reduced likelihood of implantation by whatever means would not be considered an abortion by any biological definition." This statement is unscientific in the extreme. The biological definition she ignores is not just some obscure definition of life, but the precise definition which the vast majority of scientists, including biologists, actually hold to -- that life begins at conception. (See Appendix B: When Does Human Life Begin? The Answer of Science. An early abortion is still an abortion, and no semantics change this reality. (Though for some they do manage to obscure it.)
The letter from Dr. Struthers certainly contains some valid information along with the invalid. But how seriously can we take its bottom-line conclusions that the Pill is not an abortifacient? One physician I showed it to said a "healthcare information services director" is a public relations position with a primary job of minimizing controversy, denying blame, putting out fires, and avoiding any bad publicity for products with both with physicians and the general public. Perhaps this assessment was unfair -- I don't know. But on reading her letter I determined to personally call the research or medical information departments of all the major birth control manufacturers and hear for myself what each of them had to say.
When I called Syntex, they informed me that all their "feminine products," including the Pill, have recently been purchased by Searle. So I called Searle's customer service line, identified myself by name, and was asked to explain my question. When I said that it related to the Pill's mechanism of preventing implantation, the person helping me (who didn't identify herself) became discernibly uneasy. She asked me who I was (I gave her my name again) and then asked me to wait while she conferred with her colleagues. After several minutes she got back on the line and said "Dr. Struthers will have to talk to you about this, and she's not in."
Since Dr. Struthers was unavailable, I asked the woman if she could offer me any guidance. She said, uneasiness very evident, "By any chance are you asking about this for religious reasons?" I said, "Yes, that's part of it." She said, "Well, I can tell you that our pills are not abortifacients." I asked "then why does your professional labeling talk about the Pill reducing the likelihood of implantation?" She said, "I can't answer that question. You'll have to talk to Dr. Struthers." I left my number, but Dr. Struthers didn't call me back. Since I already had her position, as stated in her fax to my physician friend, I didn't call her back either.
Organon
Next I called Organon, the maker of the birth control pill Desogen. After explaining my question about their literature that says the Pill sometimes prevents implantation, I was handed over to Erin in medical services. She informed me "the primary mechanism is preventing ovulation." After my follow-up question, she said, "The other mechanisms also happen, but they're secondary." When I asked how often the primary mechanism fails and the secondary mechanisms kick in, she said "there's no way to determine the number of times which happens and doesn't happen."
Reading between the lines, Erin said, "If you're asking if it's an abortifacient . . . [pause]" I interjected, "Yes, I am." She continued, ". . . that's difficult to ever say that." She added, "What happens is, if ovulation occurs, the Pill will thicken the mucus and thin the endometrium so that it doesn't allow that pregnancy." She quickly added, "but it's not like the IUD." (Meaning, I took it, that preventing implantation is the primary function of the IUD, whereas it is only a secondary function of the Pill.)
Wyeth-Ayerst
Wyeth-Ayerst Labs is the maker of six combination Pills. I called and spoke with a medical information coordinator named Adrianne. I read to her the professional labeling of their Pills that says "other alterations include changes . . . in the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." I asked if she knew how often the Pill prevents implantation.
Once again it became obvious that I was pro-life, presumably because no one but a pro-lifer would care about this issue. Adrianne read to me a printed statement that said "these mechanisms are not abortifacient in nature." She carefully explained that inhibiting ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus were contraceptive, not abortive. Of course, I agreed 100%. She then said, reading from the statement in front of her, "while it is true that progestins do alter the uterine lining, this is not considered a contraceptive action of these methods. The fact that these methods are not 100% effective and successful pregnancies have occurred clearly demonstrate that successful implantations can occur."
Over the following ten minutes, Adrianne kept talking about the first two mechanisms. I kept asking about the third. Finally she said, "That occurs, but it doesn't prevent a pregnancy." I thought, that's true, it doesn't prevent a pregnancy, it actually ends a pregnancy, but I knew that wasn't what she meant. I then referred her back to Wyeth's professional labeling and pointed out once more the third mechanism. She followed along with her copy and said, "That third effect happens, but it's not considered a contraceptive action, because sometimes it fails to prevent pregnancy."
(Of course, she had already acknowledged that sometimes the Pill fails to prevent ovulation and sometimes the thickened cervical mucus fails to prevent the sperm from impregnating the egg. In the same way a visible pregnancy proves the third mechanism has failed, it proves the other two mechanisms have also failed. Yet they are still considered to be real mechanisms of the Pill, despite the fact they sometimes fail. Why shouldn't the third effect be treated the same way?)
I said, "According to your professional labeling, sometimes your Pills do prevent a fertilized egg from implanting -- is that correct or incorrect?" She paused for a very long time and I heard papers shuffling. Finally she said, "Yes, that's correct, but not always . . . that's why we can't say contraceptives are 100% effective."
I said, "Okay, let me try to summarize, and please correct me if I'm wrong. There are three different ways the Pill operates. #1 usually works. When #1 fails, #2 may work. When #1 and #2 fail, #3 may work. And sometimes all three fail."
She said "Yes, that's correct." She offered to send me information by mail and I gladly accepted the offer. (I had asked Searle and Ortho to do this but they said they didn't have anything they could send me.) She warmly invited me to call back if I needed any more information.
When I received the information in the mail, it contained three things. The first was a cover letter written by Robin Boyle, , R.Ph., Wyeth's Manager of Drug Information. It was clearly a form letter designed for those expressing concerns about abortion, and contained the precise contents that Adrianne quoted to me. Also enclosed was a colorful booklet entitled Birth Control with the Pill, which is designed "to be distributed only with Triphasil sample." In the section "How the Pill Works," it states "The pill mainly prevents pregnancy in two ways." It then speaks of only the first two mechanisms and makes no reference whatsoever to the third, which prevents implantation. (This booklet does not fall under the same FDA requirements of full disclosure that the professional labeling does.)
The detailed, fine print "professional labeling" was also enclosed, and, as reflected in The PDR, it does in fact speak about "alterations include changes in . . the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." It struck me as obvious that virtually everyone receiving this information would read the large print, attractive, colorful, easy-to-understand booklet (which makes no mention of the abortive mechanism), and almost no one would read the extremely small print, black and white, technically worded, and completely unattractive sheet -- the one that acknowledges in the fine print that the Pill sometimes causes abortions by preventing implantation.
It is safe to say that virtually none of Wyeth's consumers will read the highly technical study printed in a 1988 International Journal of Fertility article, by none other than Wyeth's own Regional Director of Clinical Research, who stated one way oral contraceptives work is "by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation." (Dr. G. Virginia Upton, "The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)
Ortho
On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil's product information department. (Ortho-McNeil and Searle are the largest birth control pill manufacturers.) I took detailed notes. Hill was not guarded, was most helpful, and never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He informed me "I can't give you solid numbers, because there's no way to tell which of these three functions is actually preventing the pregnancy; but I can tell you the great majority of the time it's the first one [preventing ovulation]."
I asked him, "Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?" He said "yes." I asked, "What happens then?" He said, "The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn't work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won't implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium."
I asked him how many of the contraceptives available on the market are low dose. He said, "I don't have statistics, but I also work in a pharmacy and I can tell you the vast majority of the time people get low dose pills." He confirmed that there are some "higher dose" pills available, with 50 micrograms of estrogen instead of 20-35 micrograms, but said these were not commonly used. (Remember, even 50 micrograms is only 1/3 of the average estrogen dosage in pills of the 1960's, and is still low dose by those standards.)
I then asked Hill if he was certain the Pill made implantation less likely. "Oh, yes," he replied. I said, "So you don't think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?" He said the following, as I took detailed notes:
Oh, no, it's not theoretical. It's observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it's richest and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When a woman is taking the Pill you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance -- as seen with the naked eye -- and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so.
I asked Hill one more time, "So you're saying this is an actual effect that happens, not just a theoretical one?" He said, "Sure -- you can actually see what it does to the endometrium and it's obvious it makes implantation less likely. The only thing that's theoretical is the numbers, because we just don't know that."
The pills produced by Searle, Ortho, Wyeth and Organon are essentially the same thing, with only slightly different combinations of chemicals. The professional labeling is essentially the same. The medical experts at Searle, Wyeth and Organon were all quick to pick up my abortion-related concerns and attempted to defuse them. Despite this, the pharmacist at Ortho and the medical services people at Organon and Wyeth all three acknowledged as an established fact what their literature says, that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation. Dr. Struthers of Searle appears to deny this, but then explains that if it happens it isn't really an abortion. When I stack up these responses to the wealth of information I've found in my research, I am forced to believe the people at Ortho, Wyeth, and Organon, not Dr. Struthers at Searle.
While I know that some of what she said is wrong (including the notion that preventing implantation is not a real abortion), I hope and pray that Dr. Struthers is correct and that her position is more than just a careful public relations ploy to placate known pro-lifers and religious people. The totality of my research, however, convinces me her position is simply not based on the facts.
I think the key issue is whether the Pill's prevention of implantation is "theoretical" or actual. None of the other three manufacturers spoke of it as anything other than actual except Dr. Struthers at Searle, who said it is "a theoretical mechanism only." Pharmacist Hill at Ortho stated it was "not theoretical," but based on direct, measurable observation of the endometrium. Who is correct?
Imagine a farmer who has two places where he might plant seed. One is rich, brown soil that has been tilled, fertilized and watered. The other is on hard, thin, dry and rocky soil. If the farmer's wants as much seed as possible to take hold and grow, where will he plant the seed? The answer is self-evident. On the fertile ground.
Now, you could say to the farmer that his preference for the rich, tilled, moist soil is based on the "theoretical," because he has probably never seen a scientific study that proves this soil is more hospitable to seed than the thin, hard, dry soil. The farmer might reply, based on years of observation, "I know good soil when I see it -- sure, I've seen some plants grow in the hard, thin soil too, but the chances of survival are much less there than in the good soil. Call it theoretical if you want to, but we all know it's true!"
When Dr. Struthers points out some newly conceived children manage to grow in hostile places, this in no way changes the obvious fact that many more children will survive in a richer, thicker, more hospitable endometrium than in a thinner, more hostile one. In this sense, the issue isn't theoretical at all.
Several articles I read spoke of the mucus's ability to block sperm migration and presented as evidence the fact that the thickness of the mucus is visually observable. Of course, this appearance is not incontrovertible proof that it slows down sperm migration, but it is still considered valid evidence. Why would we question the validity of the endometrium's appearance?
Obviously, when the Pill thins the endometrium, and it certainly does, a fertilized egg has a lesser chance of survival. This means a greater chance of death. Hence, without question a woman's taking the Pill puts any conceived child at greater risk of being aborted than if the Pill wasn't being taken. Other than for reasons of wishful thinking, can anyone seriously argue against this?
We may try to take some consolation in believing that abortions happen only in theory. But we must ask, if this is a theory, how strong and credible is the theory? Once it was only a theory that plant life grows better in rich fertile soil than in thin eroded soil. But it was certainly a theory all good farmers believed in and acted upon, having every reason to believe it was true.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 2"
A wealth of scientific evidence
As a woman's menstrual cycle progresses, her endometrium gradually gets richer and thicker in preparation for the arrival of any newly conceived child who may be there to attempt implantation. In a natural cycle, unimpeded by the Pill, the endometrium experiences an increase of blood vessels, allowing an increased blood supply to bring oxygen and nutrients to the child. There is also an increase in the endometrium's stores of glycogen, a sugar that serves as a food source for the blastocyst (newly conceived child) as soon as he or she implants.
The statements in The Physician's Desk Reference, and others to follow, testify that the Pill keeps the woman's body from creating the most hospitable environment for a child, resulting instead in an endometrium that is thin and depleted, deficient in both food (glycogen) and oxygen. This deficiency may result in the child's death by starvation and suffocation. (Scientifically, one does not have to have a stomach to starve or lungs to suffocate.)
Typically, the blastocyst (new person) attempts to implant at six days after conception. If implantation is unsuccessful, she starves to death and is flushed out of the womb in an early miscarriage. (When the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is actually an abortion.)
The March 1996 issue of Fertility and Sterility presents significant research results, then states,
These data suggest that the morphological changes observed in the endometrium of OC users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs [oral contraceptives]. (Somkuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 65, #3, 3/96, page 488.)
In an extensive study, Chowdhury & Joshi point to the diminished capacity of the endometrium as part of the effectiveness of the Pill ("Escape ovulation in women due to the missing of low dose combination oral contraceptive pills," Contraception, 1980; 22:241).
In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth International (one of the major birth control pill manufacturers), says this:
The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation. ("The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)
Dr. Goldzieher (Hormonal Contraception, page 122) says as a result of the combined Pill's action "possibly the endometrium in such cycles may provide additional contraceptive protection. ' (Note that the author redefines "contraceptive," which historically meant something which prevents conception, yet is used here of preventing implantation of an already conceived person.)
The medical textbook Williams Obstetrics (Cunningham, et al, Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993, page 1323) states, "Similar to estrogens, progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation."
Drug Facts and Comparisons says this about birth control pills in its 1996 edition:
Combination OCs inhibit ovulation by suppressing the gonadotropins, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lutenizing hormone (LH). Additionally, alterations in the genital tract, including cervical mucus (which inhibits sperm penetration) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation), may contribute to contraceptive effectiveness.
"The Pill: How does it work? Is it safe?" (The Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184, Cincinnati, OH, 45211) states on page 4:
When the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, the other mechanisms come into play. Thickened cervical mucus may make it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg: however, if the egg is fertilized, a new life is created. The hormones slow the transfer of the new life through the fallopian tube, and the embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus.
If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, underdevelopment of the uterine lining caused by the Pill prevents implantation. The embryo dies and the remains are passed along in the next bleeding episode which, incidentally, is not a true menstruation, even though it is usually perceived as such.
A standard medical reference, Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) states this: "The production of glycogen by the endometrial glands is diminished by the ingestion of oral contraceptives, which impairs the survival of the blastocyst in the uterine cavity."
In her article Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: Medical and Moral Dilemmas (Linacre Quarterly, August 1990, page 55), Dr. Kristine Severyn states,
The third effect of combined oral contraceptives is to alter the endometrium in such a way that implantation of the fertilized egg (new life) is made more difficult, if not impossible. In effect, the endometrium becomes atrophic and unable to support implantation of the fertilized egg. . . . the alteration of the endometrium, making it hostile to implantation by the fertilized egg, provides a backup abortifacient method to prevent pregnancy.
Established fact even in the Seventies
One of the things that surprised me in my research was that though many recent sources testify to the Pill's abortive capacity, it has been well established for more than two decades. The following eight sources were all written in the 1970's. (Keep in mind that the term "blastocyst" refers to the newly conceived human being -- "it" is not a thing, but a person, a "he" or "she."
Dr. Daniel R. Mishell of the USC School of Medicine said,
Furthermore, they [the combination pills] alter the endometrium so that glandular production of glycogen is diminished and less energy is available for the blastocyst to survive in the uterine cavity. ("Current Status of Oral Contraceptive Steroids," Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 19:4, December 1976, page 746.)
[While serving as] president of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. J. Richard Crout said this of combination birth control pills:
Fundamentally, these pills take over the menstrual cycle from the normal endocrine mechanisms. And in so doing they inhibit ovulation and change the characteristics of the uterus so that it is not receptive to a fertilized egg. (FDA Consumer, HEW publication number 76-3024, reprinted from May, 1976.)
In 1970, J. Peel and M. Potts's Textbook of Contraceptive Practice (Cambridge University Press, 1970, page 8) acknowledged,
In addition to its action on the pituitary-ovarian axis the combination products ["the Pill"] also alter the character of the cervical mucus, modify the tubal transport of the egg and may have an effect on the endometrium to make implantation unlikely.
In their book Ovulation in the Human, P.G. Crosignani and D.R. Mishell (Academic Press, Inc., 1976, page 150), stated that birth control pills "alter the cervical mucus . . . as well as affect the endometrium, reducing glycogen production by the endometrial glands which is necessary to support the blastocyst."
The 1977 sixth edition of the Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology, then a standard reference work, states on pages 689-690,
The combination pill . . . is effective because LH release is blocked and ovulation does not occur; tubal motility is altered and fertilization is impeded; endometrial maturation is modified so that implantation is unlikely; and cervical mucus is thickened and sperm migration blocked.
(Notice that in this case four mechanisms are mentioned, and the prevention of implantation is listed before the prevention of conception by the thickened cervical mucus.)
The book My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70) states,
In a natural cycle, the uterine lining thickens under the influence of estrogen during the first part of the cycle, and then matures under the influence of both progesterone and estrogen after ovulation. This development sequence is not possible during a Pill cycle because both progestin and estrogen are present throughout the cycle. Even if ovulation and conception did occur, successful implantation would be unlikely.
It was not just obscure medical journals and textbooks which contained this information in the 70's. The popular magazine Changing Times explained, "The pill may affect the movement of the fertilized egg toward the uterus or prevent it from imbedding itself in the uterine lining." ("What We Know About the Pill," Changing Times, July 1977, page 21).
Pro-abortionists know it: Why don't we?
If most pro-lifers have been slow to catch on to this established medical knowledge (I certainly have been), many proabortionists are fully aware of it. In February 1992, writing in opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion, Tulane Law School Professor Ruth Colker wrote,
Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception . . . and implantation . . . the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives. (The Dallas Morning News, February 6, 1992, 23A)
Colker referred to all those methods, including the Pill, which sometimes prevent implantation.
Similarly, in 1989 attorney Frank Sussman, representing Missouri Abortion Clinics, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that "The most common forms of . . . contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth control pills . . . act as abortifacients" (New York Times, National Edition, April 27, 1989, pages 15 & B13). (Remember, by that time all Pills were "low dose" compared to the Pill of the 60's and 70's and 97% were low dose by recent standards, in that they had less than 50 micrograms of estrogen.)
This is such well-established knowledge that the 1982 revised edition of the Random House College Dictionary, on page 137, actually defines "Birth Control Pill" as "an oral contraceptive for women that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized ovum, causing temporary infertility." When the Pill successfully inhibits implantation of a fertilized ovum, it causes an abortion. (I'm not suggesting, of course, that Random House or any dictionary is an authoritative source. My point is that the knowledge of the Pill's prevention of implantation is so firmly established scientifically that it can be presented as standard information in a household reference book.)
I found on the World Wide Web a number of sources that recognize the abortive mechanism of the Pill. For instance, the "Marie Berry Archive" has an article called "Remembering to Take the Pill." It states matter-of-factly, "Combination oral contraceptives . . . inhibit two other hormones -- H and FSH -- preventing the lining of the uterus or endometrium from developing and thus not allowing ova implantation" http://www.escape.ca/~jdk/mb0996.htm .
Another article, "Oral Contraceptives: Frequently Asked Questions," says "The combined oral contraceptive pill . . . impedes implantation of an egg into the endometrium (uterine lining) because it changes that lining" (http://www.nau.edu/~fronske/bcp.html). Again, most sources on the web are not authoritative, but these two articles, both carefully written, do reflect what is a widespread consensus about the abortive action of the Pill. (This reality does not present a problem to most of these researchers and writers, because of their belief systems.)
For years proabortionists have argued that if the Human Life Amendment, which recognizes each human life begins at conception, was to be put into law, this would lead to the banning of both the IUD and the Pill. When hearing this I used to think, "As usual, they're misrepresenting the facts and agitating people by pretending the Pill would be jeopardized by the HLA."
I realize now that while their point was to agitate people against the Human Life Amendment, they were actually correct in saying that if the amendment was passed and taken seriously, the Pill would violate it because it takes the life of an already conceived human being. They never claimed condoms or diaphragms would be made illegal by the Human Life Amendment. Why? Because when they work, those methods are 100% contraceptives -- they never cause abortions. It's because they know that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation that prochoice advocates could honestly make the claim that an amendment stating human life begins at conception would label the Pill as a product that takes human life.
Breakthrough ovulation & backup mechanisms
One of the most common misconceptions about the Pill is that its success in preventing discernible pregnancy is entirely due to its success in preventing ovulation. If a sexually active and fertile woman taking the Pill does not get pregnant in 97-99% of her cycles it does not mean she didn't ovulate in 97-99% of her cycles.
Many months the same woman would not have gotten pregnant even if she wasn't using the Pill. Furthermore, if the Pill's second mechanism works, conception will be prevented despite ovulation taking place. If the second mechanism fails, then the third mechanism comes to play. While it may fail too, every time it succeeds it will contribute to the Pill's perceived contraceptive effectiveness. That is, because the child is newly conceived and tiny, and the pregnancy has just begun six days earlier, that pregnancy will not be discernible to the woman. Therefore every time it causes an abortion the Pill will be thought to have succeeded as a contraceptive. Most women will assume it has stopped them from ovulating even when it hasn't. This illusion reinforces the public's confidence in the Pill's effectiveness, with no understanding that both ovulation and conception may have in fact not been prevented at all.
In his article "Ovarian follicles during oral contraceptive cycles: their potential for ovulation," Dr. Stephen Killick says, "It is well established that newer, lower-dose regimes of combined oral contraceptive (OC) therapy do not completely suppress pituitary and ovarian function" (Fertility and Sterility, October 1989, page 580).
Dr. Thomas Hilgers, renowned fertility expert, personally heard Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist with the National Institute of Health (NIH), publicly state that the pills of today, with their lower estrogen doses, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time. Dr. Chez was at that time the head of the pregnancy research development branch of the NIH. (Having read this, I sought direct confirmation from Dr. Hilgers; I have a letter from him acknowledging that he did in fact hear Dr. Chez say this.)
Dr. David Sterns, in "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, PO Box 1350, Stamford, VA 22555), states that "even the early pill formulations (which were much more likely to suppress ovulation due to their higher doses of estrogen) still allowed breakthrough ovulation to occur 1 to 3% of the time." He cites an award winning study by Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange in which she discovered in Pill-takers "proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied."
To check this out myself, I obtained a copy of Dr. Van der Vange's original study, called "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain (London: Butterworths, 1988). On pages 323-24, Dr. Van der Vange concludes,
These findings indicate that ovarian suppression is far from complete with the low dose OC . . . Follicular development was found in a high percentage during low-dose OC use. . . . ovarian activity is very common for the low dose OC preparations. . . . the mode of action of these OC is not only based on ovulation inhibition, but other factors are involved such as cervical mucus, vaginal pH and composition of the endometrium.
This means that though a woman might not get measurably pregnant in 98% of her cycle months, there is simply no way to tell how often the Pill has actually prevented her ovulation. Given the fact that she would not get pregnant in many months even if she ovulated, and the fact that there are at least two other mechanisms which can prevent measurable pregnancy (one contraceptive and the other abortive), a 97% apparent effectiveness rate of the Pill might mean only a 70-90% effectiveness in actually preventing ovulation. (We could go much lower if we took the 50% figure stated by Dr. Chez of the National Institute of Health, but to be conservative I am choosing the higher rates of ovulation.) The other 7-27% of the Pill's "effectiveness" could be due to a combination of the normal rates of nonpregnancy, the thickening of the cervical mucus and -- at the heart of our concern here -- the endometrium's hostility to the fertilized egg.
As a woman's menstrual cycle progresses, her endometrium gradually gets richer and thicker in preparation for the arrival of any newly conceived child who may be there to attempt implantation. In a natural cycle, unimpeded by the Pill, the endometrium experiences an increase of blood vessels, allowing an increased blood supply to bring oxygen and nutrients to the child. There is also an increase in the endometrium's stores of glycogen, a sugar that serves as a food source for the blastocyst (newly conceived child) as soon as he or she implants.
The statements in The Physician's Desk Reference, and others to follow, testify that the Pill keeps the woman's body from creating the most hospitable environment for a child, resulting instead in an endometrium that is thin and depleted, deficient in both food (glycogen) and oxygen. This deficiency may result in the child's death by starvation and suffocation. (Scientifically, one does not have to have a stomach to starve or lungs to suffocate.)
Typically, the blastocyst (new person) attempts to implant at six days after conception. If implantation is unsuccessful, she starves to death and is flushed out of the womb in an early miscarriage. (When the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is actually an abortion.)
The March 1996 issue of Fertility and Sterility presents significant research results, then states,
These data suggest that the morphological changes observed in the endometrium of OC users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs [oral contraceptives]. (Somkuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 65, #3, 3/96, page 488.)
In an extensive study, Chowdhury & Joshi point to the diminished capacity of the endometrium as part of the effectiveness of the Pill ("Escape ovulation in women due to the missing of low dose combination oral contraceptive pills," Contraception, 1980; 22:241).
In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth International (one of the major birth control pill manufacturers), says this:
The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation. ("The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)
Dr. Goldzieher (Hormonal Contraception, page 122) says as a result of the combined Pill's action "possibly the endometrium in such cycles may provide additional contraceptive protection. ' (Note that the author redefines "contraceptive," which historically meant something which prevents conception, yet is used here of preventing implantation of an already conceived person.)
The medical textbook Williams Obstetrics (Cunningham, et al, Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993, page 1323) states, "Similar to estrogens, progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation."
Drug Facts and Comparisons says this about birth control pills in its 1996 edition:
Combination OCs inhibit ovulation by suppressing the gonadotropins, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lutenizing hormone (LH). Additionally, alterations in the genital tract, including cervical mucus (which inhibits sperm penetration) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation), may contribute to contraceptive effectiveness.
"The Pill: How does it work? Is it safe?" (The Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184, Cincinnati, OH, 45211) states on page 4:
When the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, the other mechanisms come into play. Thickened cervical mucus may make it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg: however, if the egg is fertilized, a new life is created. The hormones slow the transfer of the new life through the fallopian tube, and the embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus.
If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, underdevelopment of the uterine lining caused by the Pill prevents implantation. The embryo dies and the remains are passed along in the next bleeding episode which, incidentally, is not a true menstruation, even though it is usually perceived as such.
A standard medical reference, Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) states this: "The production of glycogen by the endometrial glands is diminished by the ingestion of oral contraceptives, which impairs the survival of the blastocyst in the uterine cavity."
In her article Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: Medical and Moral Dilemmas (Linacre Quarterly, August 1990, page 55), Dr. Kristine Severyn states,
The third effect of combined oral contraceptives is to alter the endometrium in such a way that implantation of the fertilized egg (new life) is made more difficult, if not impossible. In effect, the endometrium becomes atrophic and unable to support implantation of the fertilized egg. . . . the alteration of the endometrium, making it hostile to implantation by the fertilized egg, provides a backup abortifacient method to prevent pregnancy.
Established fact even in the Seventies
One of the things that surprised me in my research was that though many recent sources testify to the Pill's abortive capacity, it has been well established for more than two decades. The following eight sources were all written in the 1970's. (Keep in mind that the term "blastocyst" refers to the newly conceived human being -- "it" is not a thing, but a person, a "he" or "she."
Dr. Daniel R. Mishell of the USC School of Medicine said,
Furthermore, they [the combination pills] alter the endometrium so that glandular production of glycogen is diminished and less energy is available for the blastocyst to survive in the uterine cavity. ("Current Status of Oral Contraceptive Steroids," Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 19:4, December 1976, page 746.)
[While serving as] president of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. J. Richard Crout said this of combination birth control pills:
Fundamentally, these pills take over the menstrual cycle from the normal endocrine mechanisms. And in so doing they inhibit ovulation and change the characteristics of the uterus so that it is not receptive to a fertilized egg. (FDA Consumer, HEW publication number 76-3024, reprinted from May, 1976.)
In 1970, J. Peel and M. Potts's Textbook of Contraceptive Practice (Cambridge University Press, 1970, page 8) acknowledged,
In addition to its action on the pituitary-ovarian axis the combination products ["the Pill"] also alter the character of the cervical mucus, modify the tubal transport of the egg and may have an effect on the endometrium to make implantation unlikely.
In their book Ovulation in the Human, P.G. Crosignani and D.R. Mishell (Academic Press, Inc., 1976, page 150), stated that birth control pills "alter the cervical mucus . . . as well as affect the endometrium, reducing glycogen production by the endometrial glands which is necessary to support the blastocyst."
The 1977 sixth edition of the Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology, then a standard reference work, states on pages 689-690,
The combination pill . . . is effective because LH release is blocked and ovulation does not occur; tubal motility is altered and fertilization is impeded; endometrial maturation is modified so that implantation is unlikely; and cervical mucus is thickened and sperm migration blocked.
(Notice that in this case four mechanisms are mentioned, and the prevention of implantation is listed before the prevention of conception by the thickened cervical mucus.)
The book My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70) states,
In a natural cycle, the uterine lining thickens under the influence of estrogen during the first part of the cycle, and then matures under the influence of both progesterone and estrogen after ovulation. This development sequence is not possible during a Pill cycle because both progestin and estrogen are present throughout the cycle. Even if ovulation and conception did occur, successful implantation would be unlikely.
It was not just obscure medical journals and textbooks which contained this information in the 70's. The popular magazine Changing Times explained, "The pill may affect the movement of the fertilized egg toward the uterus or prevent it from imbedding itself in the uterine lining." ("What We Know About the Pill," Changing Times, July 1977, page 21).
Pro-abortionists know it: Why don't we?
If most pro-lifers have been slow to catch on to this established medical knowledge (I certainly have been), many proabortionists are fully aware of it. In February 1992, writing in opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion, Tulane Law School Professor Ruth Colker wrote,
Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception . . . and implantation . . . the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives. (The Dallas Morning News, February 6, 1992, 23A)
Colker referred to all those methods, including the Pill, which sometimes prevent implantation.
Similarly, in 1989 attorney Frank Sussman, representing Missouri Abortion Clinics, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that "The most common forms of . . . contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth control pills . . . act as abortifacients" (New York Times, National Edition, April 27, 1989, pages 15 & B13). (Remember, by that time all Pills were "low dose" compared to the Pill of the 60's and 70's and 97% were low dose by recent standards, in that they had less than 50 micrograms of estrogen.)
This is such well-established knowledge that the 1982 revised edition of the Random House College Dictionary, on page 137, actually defines "Birth Control Pill" as "an oral contraceptive for women that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized ovum, causing temporary infertility." When the Pill successfully inhibits implantation of a fertilized ovum, it causes an abortion. (I'm not suggesting, of course, that Random House or any dictionary is an authoritative source. My point is that the knowledge of the Pill's prevention of implantation is so firmly established scientifically that it can be presented as standard information in a household reference book.)
I found on the World Wide Web a number of sources that recognize the abortive mechanism of the Pill. For instance, the "Marie Berry Archive" has an article called "Remembering to Take the Pill." It states matter-of-factly, "Combination oral contraceptives . . . inhibit two other hormones -- H and FSH -- preventing the lining of the uterus or endometrium from developing and thus not allowing ova implantation" http://www.escape.ca/~jdk/mb0996.htm .
Another article, "Oral Contraceptives: Frequently Asked Questions," says "The combined oral contraceptive pill . . . impedes implantation of an egg into the endometrium (uterine lining) because it changes that lining" (http://www.nau.edu/~fronske/bcp.html). Again, most sources on the web are not authoritative, but these two articles, both carefully written, do reflect what is a widespread consensus about the abortive action of the Pill. (This reality does not present a problem to most of these researchers and writers, because of their belief systems.)
For years proabortionists have argued that if the Human Life Amendment, which recognizes each human life begins at conception, was to be put into law, this would lead to the banning of both the IUD and the Pill. When hearing this I used to think, "As usual, they're misrepresenting the facts and agitating people by pretending the Pill would be jeopardized by the HLA."
I realize now that while their point was to agitate people against the Human Life Amendment, they were actually correct in saying that if the amendment was passed and taken seriously, the Pill would violate it because it takes the life of an already conceived human being. They never claimed condoms or diaphragms would be made illegal by the Human Life Amendment. Why? Because when they work, those methods are 100% contraceptives -- they never cause abortions. It's because they know that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation that prochoice advocates could honestly make the claim that an amendment stating human life begins at conception would label the Pill as a product that takes human life.
Breakthrough ovulation & backup mechanisms
One of the most common misconceptions about the Pill is that its success in preventing discernible pregnancy is entirely due to its success in preventing ovulation. If a sexually active and fertile woman taking the Pill does not get pregnant in 97-99% of her cycles it does not mean she didn't ovulate in 97-99% of her cycles.
Many months the same woman would not have gotten pregnant even if she wasn't using the Pill. Furthermore, if the Pill's second mechanism works, conception will be prevented despite ovulation taking place. If the second mechanism fails, then the third mechanism comes to play. While it may fail too, every time it succeeds it will contribute to the Pill's perceived contraceptive effectiveness. That is, because the child is newly conceived and tiny, and the pregnancy has just begun six days earlier, that pregnancy will not be discernible to the woman. Therefore every time it causes an abortion the Pill will be thought to have succeeded as a contraceptive. Most women will assume it has stopped them from ovulating even when it hasn't. This illusion reinforces the public's confidence in the Pill's effectiveness, with no understanding that both ovulation and conception may have in fact not been prevented at all.
In his article "Ovarian follicles during oral contraceptive cycles: their potential for ovulation," Dr. Stephen Killick says, "It is well established that newer, lower-dose regimes of combined oral contraceptive (OC) therapy do not completely suppress pituitary and ovarian function" (Fertility and Sterility, October 1989, page 580).
Dr. Thomas Hilgers, renowned fertility expert, personally heard Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist with the National Institute of Health (NIH), publicly state that the pills of today, with their lower estrogen doses, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time. Dr. Chez was at that time the head of the pregnancy research development branch of the NIH. (Having read this, I sought direct confirmation from Dr. Hilgers; I have a letter from him acknowledging that he did in fact hear Dr. Chez say this.)
Dr. David Sterns, in "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, PO Box 1350, Stamford, VA 22555), states that "even the early pill formulations (which were much more likely to suppress ovulation due to their higher doses of estrogen) still allowed breakthrough ovulation to occur 1 to 3% of the time." He cites an award winning study by Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange in which she discovered in Pill-takers "proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied."
To check this out myself, I obtained a copy of Dr. Van der Vange's original study, called "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain (London: Butterworths, 1988). On pages 323-24, Dr. Van der Vange concludes,
These findings indicate that ovarian suppression is far from complete with the low dose OC . . . Follicular development was found in a high percentage during low-dose OC use. . . . ovarian activity is very common for the low dose OC preparations. . . . the mode of action of these OC is not only based on ovulation inhibition, but other factors are involved such as cervical mucus, vaginal pH and composition of the endometrium.
This means that though a woman might not get measurably pregnant in 98% of her cycle months, there is simply no way to tell how often the Pill has actually prevented her ovulation. Given the fact that she would not get pregnant in many months even if she ovulated, and the fact that there are at least two other mechanisms which can prevent measurable pregnancy (one contraceptive and the other abortive), a 97% apparent effectiveness rate of the Pill might mean only a 70-90% effectiveness in actually preventing ovulation. (We could go much lower if we took the 50% figure stated by Dr. Chez of the National Institute of Health, but to be conservative I am choosing the higher rates of ovulation.) The other 7-27% of the Pill's "effectiveness" could be due to a combination of the normal rates of nonpregnancy, the thickening of the cervical mucus and -- at the heart of our concern here -- the endometrium's hostility to the fertilized egg.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 1"
by Randy Alcorn
Introduction: What's at stake?
The Pill is the popular term for more than forty different commercially available oral contraceptives. In the medical field, they are commonly referred to as BCPs (Birth Control Pills), OCs (Oral Contraceptives) and/ or OCPs (Oral Contraceptive Pills).
The Pill is used in America by about fourteen million women each year. Across the globe it is used by hundreds of millions. The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them pro-life, who use it and recommend it. For those who believe that God is the creator of each person and that He is the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with the most profound moral implications. A great deal is at stake here not simply for society, but for the church of Jesus Christ.
After coming to grips with the importance of this issue, and hearing conflicting opinions for the last few years, I determined to thoroughly research this question and communicate my findings, no matter what they might be.
I wanted, and still want, the answer to this question to be "No." I came to this issue as a skeptic. Though I heard people here and there make an occasional claim that the Pill caused abortions, I learned long ago not to trust everything said by sincere Christians, who are sometimes long on zeal but short on careful research.
While I'm certainly fallible, I have taken pains to be as certain as possible that the information I am presenting here is accurate. I've examined medical journals and other scientifically oriented sources -- everything from popular medical reference books to highly technical professional periodicals. I've checked and double checked, submitted this research to physicians, and asked clarifying questions of pharmacists and other experts. Few of my citations are from pro-life advocates. Most are physicians, scientists, researchers, Pill-manufacturers and other secular sources. I am not a physician, but I am an experienced researcher. I have sought to put the most stock in sources that appear to be the most scientifically credible. (If I were conducting medical studies, obviously my not being a physician would disqualify me_but I am not doing medical studies, I am simply reading, collecting, and organizing them for this presentation.)
Because I want readers to be able to do what I did -- hunt down every original source you can and see it for yourself -- I have included full documentation and reference information directly in the text. I realize this may not feel "reader friendly" to some, but it will keep the reader from constantly having to turn to an endnotes section to see what source is being cited. (I have sometimes put in boldface type certain quoted phrases I wish to emphasize -- these are not boldfaced in the originals.)
Before going further, let me affirm a truth that is a foundational premise of all I am about to address: each human being is created by God at the point of conception. This is the clear teaching of the Bible and is confirmed by the scientific evidence. If you are not completely convinced of this, please stop now and read the first two appendices. They both answer the question, "When Does Human Life Begin?" Appendix A gives the answer of Scripture and Appendix B the answer of science. You may also wish to read the other appendices to bring a biblical perspective to the importance of the issue dealt with in this booklet.
(Because there is so much at stake, and because there is a great spiritual battle surrounding this issue, I ask the reader to pause and pray, asking God to give you his mind and heart concerning what we are about to deal with.)
Background: "Contraceptives" that aren't contraceptives
Contraceptives are chemicals or devices that prevent conception. A birth control method that kills an already conceived person is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient.
The problem of "contraceptives" that are really abortifacients is not a new one. Pro-life Christians have long opposed the use of Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), because they do not prevent conception, but keep the already conceived child from implanting in his mother's womb. (A recent study challenges this understanding, but many prior ones support it.) Likewise, we oppose RU-486, the anti-progesterone abortion pill. RU-486 is a human pesticide, causing a mother's womb to become hostile to her own child, resulting in an induced miscarriage.
Depo-Provera is an anti-progesterone injected every three months. It sometimes suppresses ovulation, but also thins the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation. Norplant is another anti-progesterone drug enclosed in five or six flexible closed capsules or rods, which are surgically implanted beneath the skin. It often suppresses ovulation, but sometimes ovulation occurs, and when it does an irritation to the uterine wall often prevents implantation.
The Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP) also known as the "Morning After Pill" does not prevent pregnancy, but keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
All of these birth control methods either sometimes or often alter the mother's womb in a way that causes it to reject the human life which God designed it to nourish and sustain. Christians properly reject these methods because they know that human life begins at conception, six days before implantation begins. Therefore, anything that interferes with implantation kills a person created in the image of God.
These birth control methods are often referred to as "contraceptives," but they are not exclusively contraceptives. That is, they do not always prevent conception, but sometimes or often result in the death of already conceived human beings.
(The term "fertilized egg" is itself unfortunate and dehumanizing -- the truth is that both egg and sperm are in no sense human beings, but simply products of two human beings. At the point of fertilization someone brand new comes into existence, with twenty-three chromosomes from the egg and twenty-three from the sperm combining into a never-before-existing and unique human being. As the sperm no longer exists, neither in essence does the egg, for it is replaced by a new creation with a unique DNA, rapidly growing and dividing on its own. This new human being is no more a mere "fertilized egg" than it is a "modified sperm." He or she is a newly created person, with not only gender but the equivalent of hundreds of volumes of distinct genetic programming.)
The Mini (progestin-only) Pill
Progestin-only pills (which have no estrogen) are often called "minipills." (Many people confuse them with the more popular combination estrogen-progestin pills, which are the true "Birth Control Pill."
Drug Facts & Comparisons is a standard reference book for physicians. In the 1996 edition (page 419), it says this under "Oral Contraceptives":
Oral contraceptives (OCs) include estrogen-progestin combos and progestin-only products. Progestin-only [pills] . . . alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, apparently producing cellular changes that render the endometrium hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum (egg) and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.
Note that progestin-only pills have as a primary effect to make the uterine lining (endometrium) "hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum." In other words, they cause an abortion of a human being roughly a week after his or her conception.
I have been told that many users of the minipill erroneously think their ovulations are being suppressed. In his book Gynecology: Principles & Practices (YearBook Medical Publishers, 3rd edition, 1979, page 735), R.W. Kistner says, "Certainly the majority of women using the progestin-only pill continue to ovulate."
In his book Hormonal Contraception: Pills, Injections & Implants, Dr. Joseph W. Goldzieher, states, "Endometrial resistance to implantation is an important mechanism of the minipill." (Essential Medical Information Systems, PO Box 811247, Dallas, Texas, page 35).
A 1981 Searle leaflet, packaged with their progestin-only pill, says that product "makes the womb less receptive to any fertilized egg that reaches it."
The Physician's Desk Reference, 1996 edition (page 1872) describes "Progesten-Only Oral contraceptives" by saying they "are known to alter the cervical mucus and exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation."
Clearly the progestin-only pill, by its effects on the endometrium, causes abortions and must be added to the list of abortive birth control methods. Like all the aforementioned products, the changes the mini-pill creates in the mother's endometrium make the womb hostile to the newly conceived child, rather than hospitable to him, as God designed the mother's womb to be.
But what about the far more widely-used Birth Control Pill, with combined estrogen and progestin? Is it exclusively a contraceptive? That is, does it always prevent conception? Or does it, like these other products, sometimes result in abortions? That is the central question of this booklet.
The birth control pill: My own vested interests
To make the issue more personal, I'll share my own experience. In 1991, while researching my book Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, I heard someone suggest that birth control pills can cause abortions. This was brand new to me -- in all my years as a pastor and a pro-lifer, I had never heard it before.
My vested interests were strong in that Nanci and I used the Pill in the early years of our marriage, as did many of our pro-life friends. Why not? We believed it simply prevented conception. We never suspected it had any potential for abortion. No one told us this was even a possibility. I confess I never read the fine print of the Pill's package insert, nor am I sure I would have understood it even if I had.
In fourteen years as a pastor, doing considerable premarital counseling, I always warned couples against the IUD because it causes abortions. I typically recommended young couples use the Pill because of its relative ease and effectiveness.
At the time I was researching Pro-life Answers, I found only one person who could point me toward any documentation that connected the Pill and abortion. She indicated just one primary source that supported this belief and I only came up with one other. Still, these two sources were sufficient to compel me to include this warning in my book:
Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use. . . . Among pro-lifers there is honest debate about contraceptive use and the degree to which people should strive to control the size of their families. But on the matter of controlling family size by killing a family member, we all ought to agree. Solutions based on killing people are not viable. (Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, Multnomah Press, 1992, 1994, page 118).
In reference to the abortive potential of low-dose oral contraceptives, in my book I footnoted two articles, one "Investigational Contraceptives," in the May 1987 Drug Newsletter, page 34; the other the January 1990 "Contraceptive Technology Update," page 5.
At the time, however, I incorrectly believed that "low dose" birth control pills were the exception, not the rule, and that most people who took the Pill were in no danger of having abortions. What I've found in my recent research is that since 1988 virtually all oral contraceptives used in America are low-dose, that is, they contain much lower levels of estrogen than the earlier birth control pills. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) says this:
The use of estrogen-containing formulations with less than 50 micrograms of estrogen steadily increased to 75% of all prescriptions in the United States in 1987. In the same year, only 3% of the prescriptions were for formulations that contained more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. Because these higher-dose estrogen formulations have a greater incidence of adverse effects without greater efficacy, they are no longer marketed in the United States.
After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven (Nine Van der Vange, "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain; London: Butterworths, 1988, page 315-16). These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches and increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities.
Beginning in the mid-seventies, manufacturers of the Pill steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products. The average dosage of estrogen in the Pill declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988. These facts are directly stated in an advertisement by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in Hippocrates magazine, May/June 1988, page 35.
Likewise, Pharmacists for Life confirms:
As of October 1988, the newer lower dosage birth control pills are the only type available in the U.S., by mutual agreement of the Food and Drug Administration and the three major Pill manufacturers: Ortho, Searle and Syntex. (Oral Contraceptives and IUDs: Birth Control or Abortifacients?, November 1989, page 1.)
What is now considered a "high dose" of estrogen is 50 micrograms, which is in fact a very low dose in comparison to the 150 micrograms once standard for the Pill. The "low dose" pills of today are mostly 20-35 micrograms. As far as I can tell (from looking them up individually in medical reference books), there are no birth control pills available today that have more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. If there are any, they are certainly rare.
Not only was I wrong in thinking low dose contraceptives were the exception rather than the rule, I didn't realize there was considerable documented medical information linking birth control pills and abortion. Still more has surfaced in the years since.
I say all this to emphasize I came to this research with no prejudice against the Pill. In fact, I came with a prejudice toward it. I certainly don't want to believe I may have jeopardized the lives of my own newly conceived children, nor that I was wrong in recommending it to all those couples I counseled as a pastor. It would take compelling evidence for me to change my position, but I resolved to pursue this research with an open mind, sincerely seeking the truth and hoping to find out the Pill does not really cause abortions. As we will now directly examine the evidence, I urge you to ask the Lord to give you an a truth-seeking mind and an open heart.
The Physician's Desk Reference
The Physician's Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it's often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in The PDR.
As you read the following information, keep in mind that implantation, by definition, always involves an already conceived human being, and therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation thereby functions as an abortifacient.
This is the PDR's product information as listed by Ortho, one of the two largest manufacturers of the Pill, under Ortho-Cept:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation. (The PDR, 1995, page 1775).
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause "changes in . . . the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." (The PDR, 1995, page 1782).
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. (The importance of this distinction will surface later.)
Similarly, Syntex, another major Pill manufacturer, says this in Physician's Desk Reference (1995, page 2461) under the "Clinical Pharmacology" of the six pills it produces (two types of Brevicon and four of Norinyl):
Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus), and the endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation).
Wyeth, on page 2685 of The PDR, 1995, says something very similar of its combination Pills, including Lo/Ovral and Ovral: "other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus . . . and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation." Wyeth makes virtually identical statements about its birth control pills Nordette (The PDR, 1995, page 2693) and Triphasil (page 2743).
A young couple showed me their pill, Desogen, a product of Organon. I looked it up in The PDR (1995, page 1744). It states one effect of the pill is to create "changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation."
The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill's effects, mechanisms and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which I am quoting directly from the Desogen pill insert:
If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician's Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I've read, only one included the information about the Pill's abortive mechanism (a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle). Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the manufacturer's Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician's Desk Reference. (Again, the full disclosure in the Professional Labeling is required by the FDA.)
If all this is repetitive, it establishes that according to multiple references throughout Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of a variety of birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills: 1) inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism), 2) thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and 3) thinning and shriveling the lining (endometrium) of the uterus to the point that it is unable to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg. While the first two mechanisms are contraceptive, the third is abortive.
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician's Desk References efficacy rate tables, listed under every contraceptive, this is 3% of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. Clearly then, this third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.
Introduction: What's at stake?
The Pill is the popular term for more than forty different commercially available oral contraceptives. In the medical field, they are commonly referred to as BCPs (Birth Control Pills), OCs (Oral Contraceptives) and/ or OCPs (Oral Contraceptive Pills).
The Pill is used in America by about fourteen million women each year. Across the globe it is used by hundreds of millions. The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them pro-life, who use it and recommend it. For those who believe that God is the creator of each person and that He is the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with the most profound moral implications. A great deal is at stake here not simply for society, but for the church of Jesus Christ.
After coming to grips with the importance of this issue, and hearing conflicting opinions for the last few years, I determined to thoroughly research this question and communicate my findings, no matter what they might be.
I wanted, and still want, the answer to this question to be "No." I came to this issue as a skeptic. Though I heard people here and there make an occasional claim that the Pill caused abortions, I learned long ago not to trust everything said by sincere Christians, who are sometimes long on zeal but short on careful research.
While I'm certainly fallible, I have taken pains to be as certain as possible that the information I am presenting here is accurate. I've examined medical journals and other scientifically oriented sources -- everything from popular medical reference books to highly technical professional periodicals. I've checked and double checked, submitted this research to physicians, and asked clarifying questions of pharmacists and other experts. Few of my citations are from pro-life advocates. Most are physicians, scientists, researchers, Pill-manufacturers and other secular sources. I am not a physician, but I am an experienced researcher. I have sought to put the most stock in sources that appear to be the most scientifically credible. (If I were conducting medical studies, obviously my not being a physician would disqualify me_but I am not doing medical studies, I am simply reading, collecting, and organizing them for this presentation.)
Because I want readers to be able to do what I did -- hunt down every original source you can and see it for yourself -- I have included full documentation and reference information directly in the text. I realize this may not feel "reader friendly" to some, but it will keep the reader from constantly having to turn to an endnotes section to see what source is being cited. (I have sometimes put in boldface type certain quoted phrases I wish to emphasize -- these are not boldfaced in the originals.)
Before going further, let me affirm a truth that is a foundational premise of all I am about to address: each human being is created by God at the point of conception. This is the clear teaching of the Bible and is confirmed by the scientific evidence. If you are not completely convinced of this, please stop now and read the first two appendices. They both answer the question, "When Does Human Life Begin?" Appendix A gives the answer of Scripture and Appendix B the answer of science. You may also wish to read the other appendices to bring a biblical perspective to the importance of the issue dealt with in this booklet.
(Because there is so much at stake, and because there is a great spiritual battle surrounding this issue, I ask the reader to pause and pray, asking God to give you his mind and heart concerning what we are about to deal with.)
Background: "Contraceptives" that aren't contraceptives
Contraceptives are chemicals or devices that prevent conception. A birth control method that kills an already conceived person is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient.
The problem of "contraceptives" that are really abortifacients is not a new one. Pro-life Christians have long opposed the use of Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), because they do not prevent conception, but keep the already conceived child from implanting in his mother's womb. (A recent study challenges this understanding, but many prior ones support it.) Likewise, we oppose RU-486, the anti-progesterone abortion pill. RU-486 is a human pesticide, causing a mother's womb to become hostile to her own child, resulting in an induced miscarriage.
Depo-Provera is an anti-progesterone injected every three months. It sometimes suppresses ovulation, but also thins the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation. Norplant is another anti-progesterone drug enclosed in five or six flexible closed capsules or rods, which are surgically implanted beneath the skin. It often suppresses ovulation, but sometimes ovulation occurs, and when it does an irritation to the uterine wall often prevents implantation.
The Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP) also known as the "Morning After Pill" does not prevent pregnancy, but keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
All of these birth control methods either sometimes or often alter the mother's womb in a way that causes it to reject the human life which God designed it to nourish and sustain. Christians properly reject these methods because they know that human life begins at conception, six days before implantation begins. Therefore, anything that interferes with implantation kills a person created in the image of God.
These birth control methods are often referred to as "contraceptives," but they are not exclusively contraceptives. That is, they do not always prevent conception, but sometimes or often result in the death of already conceived human beings.
(The term "fertilized egg" is itself unfortunate and dehumanizing -- the truth is that both egg and sperm are in no sense human beings, but simply products of two human beings. At the point of fertilization someone brand new comes into existence, with twenty-three chromosomes from the egg and twenty-three from the sperm combining into a never-before-existing and unique human being. As the sperm no longer exists, neither in essence does the egg, for it is replaced by a new creation with a unique DNA, rapidly growing and dividing on its own. This new human being is no more a mere "fertilized egg" than it is a "modified sperm." He or she is a newly created person, with not only gender but the equivalent of hundreds of volumes of distinct genetic programming.)
The Mini (progestin-only) Pill
Progestin-only pills (which have no estrogen) are often called "minipills." (Many people confuse them with the more popular combination estrogen-progestin pills, which are the true "Birth Control Pill."
Drug Facts & Comparisons is a standard reference book for physicians. In the 1996 edition (page 419), it says this under "Oral Contraceptives":
Oral contraceptives (OCs) include estrogen-progestin combos and progestin-only products. Progestin-only [pills] . . . alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, apparently producing cellular changes that render the endometrium hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum (egg) and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.
Note that progestin-only pills have as a primary effect to make the uterine lining (endometrium) "hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum." In other words, they cause an abortion of a human being roughly a week after his or her conception.
I have been told that many users of the minipill erroneously think their ovulations are being suppressed. In his book Gynecology: Principles & Practices (YearBook Medical Publishers, 3rd edition, 1979, page 735), R.W. Kistner says, "Certainly the majority of women using the progestin-only pill continue to ovulate."
In his book Hormonal Contraception: Pills, Injections & Implants, Dr. Joseph W. Goldzieher, states, "Endometrial resistance to implantation is an important mechanism of the minipill." (Essential Medical Information Systems, PO Box 811247, Dallas, Texas, page 35).
A 1981 Searle leaflet, packaged with their progestin-only pill, says that product "makes the womb less receptive to any fertilized egg that reaches it."
The Physician's Desk Reference, 1996 edition (page 1872) describes "Progesten-Only Oral contraceptives" by saying they "are known to alter the cervical mucus and exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation."
Clearly the progestin-only pill, by its effects on the endometrium, causes abortions and must be added to the list of abortive birth control methods. Like all the aforementioned products, the changes the mini-pill creates in the mother's endometrium make the womb hostile to the newly conceived child, rather than hospitable to him, as God designed the mother's womb to be.
But what about the far more widely-used Birth Control Pill, with combined estrogen and progestin? Is it exclusively a contraceptive? That is, does it always prevent conception? Or does it, like these other products, sometimes result in abortions? That is the central question of this booklet.
The birth control pill: My own vested interests
To make the issue more personal, I'll share my own experience. In 1991, while researching my book Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, I heard someone suggest that birth control pills can cause abortions. This was brand new to me -- in all my years as a pastor and a pro-lifer, I had never heard it before.
My vested interests were strong in that Nanci and I used the Pill in the early years of our marriage, as did many of our pro-life friends. Why not? We believed it simply prevented conception. We never suspected it had any potential for abortion. No one told us this was even a possibility. I confess I never read the fine print of the Pill's package insert, nor am I sure I would have understood it even if I had.
In fourteen years as a pastor, doing considerable premarital counseling, I always warned couples against the IUD because it causes abortions. I typically recommended young couples use the Pill because of its relative ease and effectiveness.
At the time I was researching Pro-life Answers, I found only one person who could point me toward any documentation that connected the Pill and abortion. She indicated just one primary source that supported this belief and I only came up with one other. Still, these two sources were sufficient to compel me to include this warning in my book:
Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use. . . . Among pro-lifers there is honest debate about contraceptive use and the degree to which people should strive to control the size of their families. But on the matter of controlling family size by killing a family member, we all ought to agree. Solutions based on killing people are not viable. (Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, Multnomah Press, 1992, 1994, page 118).
In reference to the abortive potential of low-dose oral contraceptives, in my book I footnoted two articles, one "Investigational Contraceptives," in the May 1987 Drug Newsletter, page 34; the other the January 1990 "Contraceptive Technology Update," page 5.
At the time, however, I incorrectly believed that "low dose" birth control pills were the exception, not the rule, and that most people who took the Pill were in no danger of having abortions. What I've found in my recent research is that since 1988 virtually all oral contraceptives used in America are low-dose, that is, they contain much lower levels of estrogen than the earlier birth control pills. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) says this:
The use of estrogen-containing formulations with less than 50 micrograms of estrogen steadily increased to 75% of all prescriptions in the United States in 1987. In the same year, only 3% of the prescriptions were for formulations that contained more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. Because these higher-dose estrogen formulations have a greater incidence of adverse effects without greater efficacy, they are no longer marketed in the United States.
After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven (Nine Van der Vange, "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain; London: Butterworths, 1988, page 315-16). These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches and increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities.
Beginning in the mid-seventies, manufacturers of the Pill steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products. The average dosage of estrogen in the Pill declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988. These facts are directly stated in an advertisement by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in Hippocrates magazine, May/June 1988, page 35.
Likewise, Pharmacists for Life confirms:
As of October 1988, the newer lower dosage birth control pills are the only type available in the U.S., by mutual agreement of the Food and Drug Administration and the three major Pill manufacturers: Ortho, Searle and Syntex. (Oral Contraceptives and IUDs: Birth Control or Abortifacients?, November 1989, page 1.)
What is now considered a "high dose" of estrogen is 50 micrograms, which is in fact a very low dose in comparison to the 150 micrograms once standard for the Pill. The "low dose" pills of today are mostly 20-35 micrograms. As far as I can tell (from looking them up individually in medical reference books), there are no birth control pills available today that have more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. If there are any, they are certainly rare.
Not only was I wrong in thinking low dose contraceptives were the exception rather than the rule, I didn't realize there was considerable documented medical information linking birth control pills and abortion. Still more has surfaced in the years since.
I say all this to emphasize I came to this research with no prejudice against the Pill. In fact, I came with a prejudice toward it. I certainly don't want to believe I may have jeopardized the lives of my own newly conceived children, nor that I was wrong in recommending it to all those couples I counseled as a pastor. It would take compelling evidence for me to change my position, but I resolved to pursue this research with an open mind, sincerely seeking the truth and hoping to find out the Pill does not really cause abortions. As we will now directly examine the evidence, I urge you to ask the Lord to give you an a truth-seeking mind and an open heart.
The Physician's Desk Reference
The Physician's Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it's often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in The PDR.
As you read the following information, keep in mind that implantation, by definition, always involves an already conceived human being, and therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation thereby functions as an abortifacient.
This is the PDR's product information as listed by Ortho, one of the two largest manufacturers of the Pill, under Ortho-Cept:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation. (The PDR, 1995, page 1775).
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause "changes in . . . the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." (The PDR, 1995, page 1782).
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. (The importance of this distinction will surface later.)
Similarly, Syntex, another major Pill manufacturer, says this in Physician's Desk Reference (1995, page 2461) under the "Clinical Pharmacology" of the six pills it produces (two types of Brevicon and four of Norinyl):
Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus), and the endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation).
Wyeth, on page 2685 of The PDR, 1995, says something very similar of its combination Pills, including Lo/Ovral and Ovral: "other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus . . . and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation." Wyeth makes virtually identical statements about its birth control pills Nordette (The PDR, 1995, page 2693) and Triphasil (page 2743).
A young couple showed me their pill, Desogen, a product of Organon. I looked it up in The PDR (1995, page 1744). It states one effect of the pill is to create "changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation."
The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill's effects, mechanisms and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which I am quoting directly from the Desogen pill insert:
If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician's Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I've read, only one included the information about the Pill's abortive mechanism (a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle). Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the manufacturer's Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician's Desk Reference. (Again, the full disclosure in the Professional Labeling is required by the FDA.)
If all this is repetitive, it establishes that according to multiple references throughout Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of a variety of birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills: 1) inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism), 2) thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and 3) thinning and shriveling the lining (endometrium) of the uterus to the point that it is unable to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg. While the first two mechanisms are contraceptive, the third is abortive.
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician's Desk References efficacy rate tables, listed under every contraceptive, this is 3% of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. Clearly then, this third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Centrality of the Home in the Evangelism and Discipleship of the Next Generation
SBTC Evangelism Conference
By Voddie Baucham
Bible Text: Ephesians 6:1-4
Preached on: Saturday, February 18, 2006
Grace Family Baptist Church
8765 Spring Cypress Road
Suite L
Spring, TX 77379
Website: www.gracefamilybaptist.net
Online Sermons: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5209234630
Well, good evening. It is good to be here with you this evening.
If I had had an opportunity and was ready to come, been able to come and get right in line with the theme and do what I always try to do which is preach what I am asked to preach, but they didn’t ask me to preach anything. They just asked me to come. So you get what I’ve been sitting on and what I have been living with. I hope that’s all right.
You just... if you will allow me, I see my former pastor, Dr. John Morgan and his lovely wife sitting up here in the front row and you need to know that one of the greatest periods of ministry in my life was the time that I spent as a teaching pastor at Sagemont Church in Houston. And much of what I am today is because of my time there.
You know, there are two sides of my life. There is this one side where cultural apologetics is what I live and breathe and teach and preach and there is the other side where I am Bridget’s husband and Jasmine’s Trey and Elijah’s father and by the way we have another baby who will be here any day now. And so God continues to be good to us.
And there is a place where these two parts of my life merge. I want to share something with you tonight that has been sobering to me. The place where these two things merge is here and I am not real big on statistics, but I just need to share a few things with you to paint a picture and I want to do the best that I can to let you know where these things come from.
Those of you who know me know that I am... it just pains me to ever have any noteswhen I preach. I just can’t do it. I just can’t have any notes. But I had to have some things here so I could tell you exactly where this information comes from and where you can go and find it.
One is this, that we are losing a generation and we are losing that generation rapidly. For instance, depending on where you look, we are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college, somewhere between 75and 88%. For that low number you can look at Glen Shultz’ work on kingdom education, for that high number, the 2002 Southern Baptist council on the family.
And so these are not things that are just made up, that are just grabbed out of the air. That is what has been happening over the last few decades. We are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college.
There are a lot of you in here and you are upset about the whole Emerging Church movement. You are upset about Brian MacLaren and some of the theology that he is espousing. I don’t like much of the theology that is coming out of the Emerging Church movement, but can I tell you what the impetus is behind the Emerging Church movement. Twenty somethings are gone. The Emerging Church movement is saying, “What do we do to recapture this age group?”
By the way, if you look around you will see that we have a generation gap in the SBC.
Amen, lights. There is a tremendous generation gap among Southern Baptists and it is time that we got honest about it. And part of it is because of what I am telling you. Hold on, though. I am not finished painting the picture.
In our culture, in America for the first time, our birth rate is below replacement rate. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per family. We are at 1.9. Now we are not as bad as much of the industrialized world. For example in France I think they are around 1.5 children per family. In Italy they are somewhere around 1.1 children per family.
Now, in case you don’t understand what that means, what that means is we are not having enough children for our culture to continue to survive. Our culture is dying one generation at a time.
Now, let me put skin on that for you. France, they have a birth rate of about 1.5. However, there are North African Muslims and Arab Muslims who have emigrated into France and we saw some unrest because of those folks. Their birthrate is about six children per family which means in two generations France will be a Muslim nation by sheer numbers alone.
Why? Because they want prosperity more than they want children. And it is the same for us.
Now let me put these two pieces of statistical information together. At two children per family, Southern Baptists, because we are no better than the rest of the culture on this, our attitude towards children is a boy for me and a girl for you and praise the Lord we are finally through. Amen. It is an unwritten rule that you can only have two kids.
However, there is one exception to the unwritten rule where you can have a third child and that is if your first two children were the same sex you get to try one more time for the other. That is the unwritten rule.
We despise children in our culture. We despise children in the Southern Baptist Convention.
You don’t believe me? Find a woman with six or seven kids and follow her into a Southern Baptist Church and watch the way we mock her. Watch the way people who don’t even know her come up to her and say, “Haven’t you guys figured out how that happens yet?”
Now let me put these two statistics together. We lose 75... let’s take the most optimistic number. We are losing 75 by the end of their freshman year in college. We average two children per family. That means it currently takes two Christian families in this generation to get one Christian into the next.
Let me make it even more plain. There’s 16 million Southern Baptists on paper. By these numbers next generation, four million; third generation, one million; fourth generation, 250,000. More than numbers now, aren’t they?
Oh, but that’s ok. We’ll just replenish those numbers through evangelism.
Interesting. In order to replenish those numbers through evangelism alone what we would have to do is reach three lost people for every one Christian. Currently we only reach one lost person for every 43 Southern Baptists.
Now, let me make it plain and bring it home. Christianity in America is dying one generation at a time, one a home at a time. Christianity is dying.
Among the Jewish community the same thing is happening. Two scholars, Anthony Gordon and Richard Horowitz, have done a study on what is happening in the Jewish community and listen to what they say. The research targeted three key qualifiable elements of Jewish survival: intermarriage rates as believers marrying other believers instead of nonbelievers so that they lose the faith, birth rates and levels of Jewish education. When all these factors are tabulated and correlated, a troubling picture emerges of the future of American Jewry. Sky rocketing intermarriage rates, declining birth rates and inadequate Jewish education continue to decimate the American Jewish people.
We are right behind them.
There was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal just yesterday about Zoroastrians in India. Now what does Zoroastrians in India have to do with anything? I will tell you.
Here is what they were saying in the article, front page article in the Wall Street Journal.
Because of low birth rates and because people are getting married later and having fewer children than ever before, the Zoroastrian religion is about to be wiped off the face of the planet simply because they are not having kids and retaining the kids that they have.
Are you smelling what I am stepping in?
What has been our answer? Here has been our answer. Our answer has been to divorce ourselves from the issue and hire youth pastors to make it better. If you can’t say amen you ought to say ouch.
That has been our answer.
By the way, Alan Reed in his book Raising the Bar makes this observation. “Over the last 30 years we have seen the largest increase in the number of professional youth ministers, youth ministry degrees being handed out and para church organizations designed to reach youth and we have seen the greatest decline in youth baptisms ever.”
Let me make this statement and then I will back it up while you open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter six. Let me make this statement. Our current approach to youth ministry, number one, is unbiblical; number two is antithetical to what the biblical model is for the evangelization and discipleship of young people; and, number three, it doesn’t work.
Let me recap. Number one, our current approach is unbiblical. I am going to show you that. Number two, our current approach is actually antithetical to the biblical model. It is one thing for something to not be found in the Scripture. It is another thing for something to actually work against what is clearly found in the Scripture. And, number three, which shouldn’t be surprising at all, it doesn’t work. Or do I need to say it again? 75 to 88% is our current failure rate.
Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. I want to show you from the Scripture the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. God has a plan for multi generational faithfulness. That plan is the family. Unfortunately, many of the things that we currently involve ourselves in actually work against God’s plan of the family. And so currently what we are doing is we are actually... this is... let me give you, for example.... When is say that what we are doing is unbiblical, let me give you what we say is the goal of many of our youth ministries.
What we say is this. The youth ministry at so and so Baptist Church exists to evangelize teenagers, to disciple them and to equip them to go and evangelize other teenagers. Two problems with that. Number one, nine times out of 10 we never mention parents. And, number two, not your job. Whose job is it to evangelize my children? The Church? No, it is mine. Whose job is it to disciple my children? The Church? No, it’s mine, which means that at best any youth ministry that is going to exist at all had better have a mission statement that says, “We exist to equip and assist parents as they do what God called them to do and not the Church.”
It is one thing for me to make that statement, but I don’t want you to just take my word for it.
Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. Oh, they are messing with me on my time. All right, Ephesians chapter six verse one through four. But, trust me, you needeto know all of that.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.1
The centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home. Now please note. There is a difference, because what is happening now is people are looking at the data and a lot of our youth ministry programs are now moving toward ministry to youth and their families. And so we were saying, “The kids are ours and it is our job to evangelize them, our job to disciple them and our job to mobilize them.”
Now we say, “It is still our job, but we want parents to help us.”
That is still the wrong answer.
“Well, but you don’t understand. These families out there, they are not doing it.”
Isn’t that interesting? For 30 years here is what we have been telling them. “We are trained professionals. Please don’t try this at home. You don’t understand your kids.Your kids don’t like you. Trust me. Just drop them off now.”
And now we are mad because they are doing what we have taught them to do for 30 years.
All right, I am going to get to this text. Now, come on.
Three things demonstrate the centrality of the home in this process of evangelizing and discipling the next generation. First, a context of that first verse. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”
Now in order to understand the context of that verse you have got to back up to the paragraph before it. You back up to the paragraph before it and you start with, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church.”
But the problem with that is you get there and you have got to back up to the paragraph before that one to see the context of this section. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”
The problem with that is that it is the beginning of the section, but it has got no verb. I know what you are saying. “It has got a verb right there. Be subject. Isn’t that the verb?”
It ought to be italicized in your Bible. The reason it is italicized is because it is borrowed from verse 21. In the Greek there is verb there in verse 22. So it is borrowed from verse 21. The problem with starting with verse 21, if you start with verse 21 you start at the end of a paragraph and you can’t do that. So in order to understand the context of Ephesians chapter six verse one, you have got to go all the way back to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15. Trust me. We are going somewhere.
When you back up to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15 here is what you get. You get three contrasts and then you get three commands and then you get three contexts. All right? Three contrasts.
Let’s look at them beginning at verse 15. Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
That is contrast number one.
Contrast number two, next verse: “So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”
That is the second contrast. Don’t be foolish. Understand the Lord’s will.
Third contrast: “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.”
On the third contrast you get three commands. Those three commands are connected to the third contrast. Look at what he says beginning in verse 19. How do you know somebody is living the Spirit filled life?
Verse 19. “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.”
4 Ephesians 5:22.
5 Ephesians 5:15-16.
If you show me a worshipful person, I will show you a person who is more than likely being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me a person who is not a worshipful person and I will show you somebody who more than likely is not being controlled and is not yielding to the Spirit of God.
You can’t tell me that somebody is Spirit filled and they are not worshipful. The two just don’t go together. Fair enough?
Look at the next verse. Here is the next command. Verse 20. “Always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.”
So you are a worshipful person. Secondly, you are prayerfully thankful, prayerfully thankful. Show me somebody who is prayerfully thankful and I will show you somebody who is probably being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me somebody who ineither prayerful nor thankful and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.
Fair enough? Those were easy.
Verse 21. “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Show me somebody who submits to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is Spirit filled. Show me somebody who does not submit to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.
Now go to chapter six and verse one and look at it in context. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”
In other words, three contrasts, three commands. On the third command you get three contexts. Context number one, wives and husbands; context number two, children and parents; context number three, servants and masters.
Here is what he is saying in verse one. Show me a child who is not submissive to their parents’ authority and I will show you a child who is not yielded to the Spirit of God which means if we want to lead children toward being Spirit filled, we don’t lead them toward the youth pastor, we lead them toward mom and dad because the measure of their yielding to the Spirit of God is whether or not when their parents say something they do what they are told when they are told and with a respectful attitude. That is what obedience is.
So, number one, we see the centrality of the home in the context here. He says, “You want to take the spiritual temperature of a young person, you take the spiritual temperature of a young person by whether or not they are submissive to the authority of their parents.”
That is the authority in their life. That is the spiritual authority in their life.
The spiritual authority in my child’s life is me. The spiritual authority in your child’s life is you which means anything that the Church does had better not rob spiritual authority from mom and dad.
I don’t write the mail. I just deliver it.
Secondly, look at the centrality in the home in his use of the Fifth Commandment. Look at what he says there, the next verse. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."
Now, as Americans, we are rugged individualists. So the first thing we want to do with this verse is we want to say, “That is talking to the individual child.”
“Child, you obey me, you will have a long prosperous life.”
No. No. Understand the significance of the Fifth Commandment. First of all the Fifth Commandment is the first of the horizontal commandments. There’s 10 Commandments.
The first four are vertical. The last six are horizontal. Number one on the hit parade of the horizontal commandments, the man to man commandments, number one is: Honor your father and your mother, which means there is nothing that the Church can teach a child that is more important than honoring their father and their mother.
Now, not only do we see it because of the position, secondly, we see it because of a promise. That is the first one with a promise. Folks, that’s huge. Do you know what the first four commandments are?
Commandment number one, “I am God. You don’t get another one.”
“Lord, can we get a promise with that one?”
“No, no promise. Just do it.”
Commandment number two. “Don’t even make nothing that look like me.”
“Ok, God, can we get a promise with that one?”
“No. Just do it.”
Commandment number three. “Don’t even mess with my name.”
“Ok, God. That is kind of serious right there. You have got to give us a promise on that one.”
“No.”
Commandment number four. “Don’t even mess with my day.”
“Now, wait a minute, now. You know, I want my boy to be a baseball player and most of the teams, you know, he have to go and he have to play on Sunday sometime and, God, I am sure you will...”
“Don’t mess with my day.”
“Get a promise with that one, Lord?”
“No promise.”
Commandment number five. “Honor your father and your mother.”
“Can I get a promise with that one, God?”
“You better believe you can. On that one I give you a promise.”
Do you see the importance of the Fifth Commandment? It is huge. Its order screams about its importance. The fact that it is the first one with a promise screams of its importance.
Now, listen to this. The Fifth Commandment was not for the individual child. It was for the community of faith. Here is what the Fifth Commandment is about. Remember, we get them in Deuteronomy five. In Deuteronomy chapter six what does he teach us? He teaches us how to disciple our children in our homes. He teaches us, “Listen, Israel...”
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Disciple your children.
““Can I give it to somebody else to do?”
“No. It is your job as parents.”
Listen to me. You are clapping, but almost everyone of you has a youth ministry in your church that is operating unbiblically. Don’t clap if you are not going to change it. And I am not talking about including more parents in what we do. I am talking about changing the entire paradigm.
Why? Because here is the purpose of the Fifth Commandment. God says, “You are my people, but you are about to go into a pagan land where they worship pagan gods. If you want to continue to be my people here is what you must do. Number one, you must have a boatload of kids. That is what it means to multiply greatly.”
By the way, when he sends them into the Promised Land, what does he say to them in Deuteronomy? That they are to multiply greatly so that when he sends them into the Promised Land they won’t disappear as God’s people. When he sends them into exile in Jeremiah 29 what does he say? Multiply greatly.
You want to avoid disappearing in the midst of a pagan culture? Out breed them.
Let me tell you something. There are some of us in the room that need to repent because of our attitude toward children and because of what we have said to people communicating our attitude and not the biblical attitude toward children. Some of us need to get on our faces before a holy God because we have mocked being fruitful. I have heard pastors from pulpit, from the pulpit talk about their children like they despise the number of children that God has given them. I heard a pastor from the pulpit talk about their third children being named Miny.
“Yeah, Eeny, Meeny and Miny because we ain’t having no more.”
That is a mockery before almighty God. Children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward.14 Our attitude from here is why a lot of people out there aren’t having enough kids.
It starts with us. And it all goes back to prosperity. The poorest nations in the world see children as a blessing. The richest nation in the world, we talk about children in terms of how many we can afford. God help us. We are dying one generation at a time because we refuse to receive the gift that God wants to bring through the womb.
Our attitudes. God says, “You want to continue to be my people? You do two things. Number one, you gladly receive these blessings that I give you called children. And, number two, you disciple them in your homes so that they don’t look like the culture around them.”
The minute you stop receiving the gift of God through the womb and the minute you stop discipling them in your home, they begin to look like the culture and the community of God begins to vanish before your eyes.
Two Christian families in this generation to get one generation into the next. I believe that is a plague on us.
It is amazing. We always talk about how we want more souls in the kingdom. If we were honest, here is what we would say. “We want more souls in the kingdom, as long as we don’t have to birth them, raise them and feed them.”
Finally, in case you don’t understand what he said by the context of this passage and in case you don’t understand what he said by him pointing to the Fifth Commandment, how about a plain, black and white, straightforward word?
Verse four.
And fathers... And fathers... And fathers... And fathers...
Everybody is trying to figure out how to make men excited about church again. Everybody is figuring out how do we challenge our men, how do we get our men involved? God has got an answer. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”15
It doesn’t get clearer than that, folks. The context of this passage says the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. The fact that he points to the Fifth Commandment screams that the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. And then, in case we didn’t get those two hints, he says it in black and white. “Fathers, disciple your children. Fathers.”
If we believe this then why is it that we have done everything in our power not to allow that to happen? We don’t expect that from our men.
I hear you. We go back to this whole thing. I understand that. But they are just not equipped. They just don’t know.
Here is what is interesting. If the people in your church are not tithing, you don’t start a ministry to tithe for them, do you? No. You simply teach them and expect them to do what the Bible says is their job. If it works for tithing, why don’t we think it will work for the discipleship of the next generation.
So what do we do with this? I am not telling you all to go fire your youth pastors tomorrow. That is not what I am saying here. But we have to completely revamp our philosophies.
In the last couple of minutes that I have left let me give you a few things that we must do because currently all of our evangelistic efforts amount to no more than filling up a bucket with a hole in the bottom. We are not growing. I want you to hear that today.
And, by the way, and this is all you out there you are going, “Eh, those 16 million, we are not going to.... of course not. We won’t go down to four million in just one generation.”
No. Listen to me. Our churches will continue to be filled, but here is what we do know.
Number one, we know because of Tom Raider’s research that was published in the Spring edition of the Southern Baptist Theological Journal according to their research, if their estimations are correct, somewhere around half of all Southern Baptist members are unregenerate.
By the way, according to the Nehemiah Institute, the Barna Research Group and the National Study of Youth and Religion, less than 10% of professing Christian teenagers operate from a biblical worldview. Less than 5% are theologically born again. By that, I mean they say they are born again and they trust Christ as Savior and Lord of their life. But they are wrong on the deity of Christ. They are wrong on substitutionary atonement. They are wrong on just about every important theological issue related to salvation. Only 5% of them theologically have the information that they need to be saved.
So our churches will continue to look big, but the overwhelming majority of the people inside will not be Christ’s followers.
So what do we do? Number one, I beseech you, if you don’t have a biblical view of children, get on your face before almighty God and repent. And if you have been mocking children from your pulpit and if you like one pastor, one pastor that I talked to recently said, “Brother, when you said that here is what I thought. The first thought that came to my mind was last week I talked to my people and I told them that we thought my wife was pregnant. And when I said that I told them that after we found out that she wasn’t I said, whew, we had a close call.” He said, “I need to go get on my face right now because I communicated to my people that children are a curse and a scourge and not a blessing.”
Do not make a mockery of children. You encourage people to welcome children into their homes. You throw a banquet when that woman walks into your church with six or seven kids behind her. You honor her and let everybody see you do it because if it weren’t for women like her we would have no future.
Secondly, you have a youth ministry in your church and you have a mission statement. You line it up against what we have looked at tonight in Scripture and if it is wrong on its biblical and theological merit, you crumble it up, put it in the trash and start over because it will not change until we change our entire mentality about what it means to disciple the next generation.
As long as you think it is your idea or it is your responsibility, as long as you think that our job in discipling the next generation means hiring some guy who is 25 years old and got spiked hair and has never raised a teenager himself, Lord, help us. Our entire mentality has to change.
Thirdly, and this is the toughest one to talk about, we have to adopt a biblical view of church leadership. I want to tell you something. There is two skills required of a pastor and only two skills. There are a lot of character qualities that are required, but only two skills. Number one, he must be able to teach. Number two, he must manage his household well. Our churches are filled with biblically disqualified pastors.
Titus chapter one makes it clear. If you do not have faithful children and if your children are accused of rebellion or dissipation you are disqualified biblically. And you hear that.
And I know we hear that and we go, “Oh, brother, that is harsh. Nobody is perfect.”
Listen to me. The same passage says... and here is what boggles my mind. Same passage, same paragraph, “must not be addicted to wine.” That says, “He must not be drunkard. He must not drink in excess.”
We say, “He can’t drink at all.”
Listen to me. I am not a drinker. I am not promoting drinking. I have never had a drink. But this is what I want you to hear tonight. Not drinking is easy for me and it is easy for most of you because most of you never drank and you stick your chest out and pop your collar because you don’t drink. It means nothing to you unless you have been an alcoholic. It is not hard for you to do.
Discipling your family is a different story and it amazes me that in the same paragraph we take one of those requirements and raise it and the other one and lower it.
You want to know why our families are in turmoil? Because most of you when you got hired at the church that you are at right now, they never even met your family. They heard you preach and voted on you when the Bible says if you are not discipling your children in an exemplary fashion you are not worthy of being called a pastor. From the top down we are wrong on the family. And we are losing the culture war one family at a time. And we have gotten so pathetic that now there is a euphemism in our culture called the PK. Why do we use that term as a euphemism? Because pastor’s kids who live like they were raised by the devil has almost become the norm. If the church’s incorporation has completely acceptable because all you have to do is stand at the top of a machine and make sure that people go in one side of it and out the other and that there is more of them going through the machine next year than this year, but if the church is a family of families and if God is serious about families being expected and equipped to disciple their children, then the people who stand at the helm had better be exemplary husbands and exemplary fathers.
And until we believe that we will continue to lose the culture war, one family at a time.
Listen to this from Richard Baxter in The Reformed Pastor. “If you are ungodly and teach not your families the fear of God, nor contradict the sins of the company you are in, nor turn the stream of their vain talking, nor deal with them plainly about their salvation, they will take it as if you preached to them that such things are needless and that they may boldly do so as well as you.”
Mist in the pulpit, fog in the pew. We will never be able to tell our children to raise and disciple a house full of warriors for Christ if we don’t begin to do it from the top.
By Voddie Baucham
Bible Text: Ephesians 6:1-4
Preached on: Saturday, February 18, 2006
Grace Family Baptist Church
8765 Spring Cypress Road
Suite L
Spring, TX 77379
Website: www.gracefamilybaptist.net
Online Sermons: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5209234630
Well, good evening. It is good to be here with you this evening.
If I had had an opportunity and was ready to come, been able to come and get right in line with the theme and do what I always try to do which is preach what I am asked to preach, but they didn’t ask me to preach anything. They just asked me to come. So you get what I’ve been sitting on and what I have been living with. I hope that’s all right.
You just... if you will allow me, I see my former pastor, Dr. John Morgan and his lovely wife sitting up here in the front row and you need to know that one of the greatest periods of ministry in my life was the time that I spent as a teaching pastor at Sagemont Church in Houston. And much of what I am today is because of my time there.
You know, there are two sides of my life. There is this one side where cultural apologetics is what I live and breathe and teach and preach and there is the other side where I am Bridget’s husband and Jasmine’s Trey and Elijah’s father and by the way we have another baby who will be here any day now. And so God continues to be good to us.
And there is a place where these two parts of my life merge. I want to share something with you tonight that has been sobering to me. The place where these two things merge is here and I am not real big on statistics, but I just need to share a few things with you to paint a picture and I want to do the best that I can to let you know where these things come from.
Those of you who know me know that I am... it just pains me to ever have any noteswhen I preach. I just can’t do it. I just can’t have any notes. But I had to have some things here so I could tell you exactly where this information comes from and where you can go and find it.
One is this, that we are losing a generation and we are losing that generation rapidly. For instance, depending on where you look, we are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college, somewhere between 75and 88%. For that low number you can look at Glen Shultz’ work on kingdom education, for that high number, the 2002 Southern Baptist council on the family.
And so these are not things that are just made up, that are just grabbed out of the air. That is what has been happening over the last few decades. We are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college.
There are a lot of you in here and you are upset about the whole Emerging Church movement. You are upset about Brian MacLaren and some of the theology that he is espousing. I don’t like much of the theology that is coming out of the Emerging Church movement, but can I tell you what the impetus is behind the Emerging Church movement. Twenty somethings are gone. The Emerging Church movement is saying, “What do we do to recapture this age group?”
By the way, if you look around you will see that we have a generation gap in the SBC.
Amen, lights. There is a tremendous generation gap among Southern Baptists and it is time that we got honest about it. And part of it is because of what I am telling you. Hold on, though. I am not finished painting the picture.
In our culture, in America for the first time, our birth rate is below replacement rate. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per family. We are at 1.9. Now we are not as bad as much of the industrialized world. For example in France I think they are around 1.5 children per family. In Italy they are somewhere around 1.1 children per family.
Now, in case you don’t understand what that means, what that means is we are not having enough children for our culture to continue to survive. Our culture is dying one generation at a time.
Now, let me put skin on that for you. France, they have a birth rate of about 1.5. However, there are North African Muslims and Arab Muslims who have emigrated into France and we saw some unrest because of those folks. Their birthrate is about six children per family which means in two generations France will be a Muslim nation by sheer numbers alone.
Why? Because they want prosperity more than they want children. And it is the same for us.
Now let me put these two pieces of statistical information together. At two children per family, Southern Baptists, because we are no better than the rest of the culture on this, our attitude towards children is a boy for me and a girl for you and praise the Lord we are finally through. Amen. It is an unwritten rule that you can only have two kids.
However, there is one exception to the unwritten rule where you can have a third child and that is if your first two children were the same sex you get to try one more time for the other. That is the unwritten rule.
We despise children in our culture. We despise children in the Southern Baptist Convention.
You don’t believe me? Find a woman with six or seven kids and follow her into a Southern Baptist Church and watch the way we mock her. Watch the way people who don’t even know her come up to her and say, “Haven’t you guys figured out how that happens yet?”
Now let me put these two statistics together. We lose 75... let’s take the most optimistic number. We are losing 75 by the end of their freshman year in college. We average two children per family. That means it currently takes two Christian families in this generation to get one Christian into the next.
Let me make it even more plain. There’s 16 million Southern Baptists on paper. By these numbers next generation, four million; third generation, one million; fourth generation, 250,000. More than numbers now, aren’t they?
Oh, but that’s ok. We’ll just replenish those numbers through evangelism.
Interesting. In order to replenish those numbers through evangelism alone what we would have to do is reach three lost people for every one Christian. Currently we only reach one lost person for every 43 Southern Baptists.
Now, let me make it plain and bring it home. Christianity in America is dying one generation at a time, one a home at a time. Christianity is dying.
Among the Jewish community the same thing is happening. Two scholars, Anthony Gordon and Richard Horowitz, have done a study on what is happening in the Jewish community and listen to what they say. The research targeted three key qualifiable elements of Jewish survival: intermarriage rates as believers marrying other believers instead of nonbelievers so that they lose the faith, birth rates and levels of Jewish education. When all these factors are tabulated and correlated, a troubling picture emerges of the future of American Jewry. Sky rocketing intermarriage rates, declining birth rates and inadequate Jewish education continue to decimate the American Jewish people.
We are right behind them.
There was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal just yesterday about Zoroastrians in India. Now what does Zoroastrians in India have to do with anything? I will tell you.
Here is what they were saying in the article, front page article in the Wall Street Journal.
Because of low birth rates and because people are getting married later and having fewer children than ever before, the Zoroastrian religion is about to be wiped off the face of the planet simply because they are not having kids and retaining the kids that they have.
Are you smelling what I am stepping in?
What has been our answer? Here has been our answer. Our answer has been to divorce ourselves from the issue and hire youth pastors to make it better. If you can’t say amen you ought to say ouch.
That has been our answer.
By the way, Alan Reed in his book Raising the Bar makes this observation. “Over the last 30 years we have seen the largest increase in the number of professional youth ministers, youth ministry degrees being handed out and para church organizations designed to reach youth and we have seen the greatest decline in youth baptisms ever.”
Let me make this statement and then I will back it up while you open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter six. Let me make this statement. Our current approach to youth ministry, number one, is unbiblical; number two is antithetical to what the biblical model is for the evangelization and discipleship of young people; and, number three, it doesn’t work.
Let me recap. Number one, our current approach is unbiblical. I am going to show you that. Number two, our current approach is actually antithetical to the biblical model. It is one thing for something to not be found in the Scripture. It is another thing for something to actually work against what is clearly found in the Scripture. And, number three, which shouldn’t be surprising at all, it doesn’t work. Or do I need to say it again? 75 to 88% is our current failure rate.
Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. I want to show you from the Scripture the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. God has a plan for multi generational faithfulness. That plan is the family. Unfortunately, many of the things that we currently involve ourselves in actually work against God’s plan of the family. And so currently what we are doing is we are actually... this is... let me give you, for example.... When is say that what we are doing is unbiblical, let me give you what we say is the goal of many of our youth ministries.
What we say is this. The youth ministry at so and so Baptist Church exists to evangelize teenagers, to disciple them and to equip them to go and evangelize other teenagers. Two problems with that. Number one, nine times out of 10 we never mention parents. And, number two, not your job. Whose job is it to evangelize my children? The Church? No, it is mine. Whose job is it to disciple my children? The Church? No, it’s mine, which means that at best any youth ministry that is going to exist at all had better have a mission statement that says, “We exist to equip and assist parents as they do what God called them to do and not the Church.”
It is one thing for me to make that statement, but I don’t want you to just take my word for it.
Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. Oh, they are messing with me on my time. All right, Ephesians chapter six verse one through four. But, trust me, you needeto know all of that.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.1
The centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home. Now please note. There is a difference, because what is happening now is people are looking at the data and a lot of our youth ministry programs are now moving toward ministry to youth and their families. And so we were saying, “The kids are ours and it is our job to evangelize them, our job to disciple them and our job to mobilize them.”
Now we say, “It is still our job, but we want parents to help us.”
That is still the wrong answer.
“Well, but you don’t understand. These families out there, they are not doing it.”
Isn’t that interesting? For 30 years here is what we have been telling them. “We are trained professionals. Please don’t try this at home. You don’t understand your kids.Your kids don’t like you. Trust me. Just drop them off now.”
And now we are mad because they are doing what we have taught them to do for 30 years.
All right, I am going to get to this text. Now, come on.
Three things demonstrate the centrality of the home in this process of evangelizing and discipling the next generation. First, a context of that first verse. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”
Now in order to understand the context of that verse you have got to back up to the paragraph before it. You back up to the paragraph before it and you start with, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church.”
But the problem with that is you get there and you have got to back up to the paragraph before that one to see the context of this section. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”
The problem with that is that it is the beginning of the section, but it has got no verb. I know what you are saying. “It has got a verb right there. Be subject. Isn’t that the verb?”
It ought to be italicized in your Bible. The reason it is italicized is because it is borrowed from verse 21. In the Greek there is verb there in verse 22. So it is borrowed from verse 21. The problem with starting with verse 21, if you start with verse 21 you start at the end of a paragraph and you can’t do that. So in order to understand the context of Ephesians chapter six verse one, you have got to go all the way back to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15. Trust me. We are going somewhere.
When you back up to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15 here is what you get. You get three contrasts and then you get three commands and then you get three contexts. All right? Three contrasts.
Let’s look at them beginning at verse 15. Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
That is contrast number one.
Contrast number two, next verse: “So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”
That is the second contrast. Don’t be foolish. Understand the Lord’s will.
Third contrast: “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.”
On the third contrast you get three commands. Those three commands are connected to the third contrast. Look at what he says beginning in verse 19. How do you know somebody is living the Spirit filled life?
Verse 19. “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.”
4 Ephesians 5:22.
5 Ephesians 5:15-16.
If you show me a worshipful person, I will show you a person who is more than likely being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me a person who is not a worshipful person and I will show you somebody who more than likely is not being controlled and is not yielding to the Spirit of God.
You can’t tell me that somebody is Spirit filled and they are not worshipful. The two just don’t go together. Fair enough?
Look at the next verse. Here is the next command. Verse 20. “Always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.”
So you are a worshipful person. Secondly, you are prayerfully thankful, prayerfully thankful. Show me somebody who is prayerfully thankful and I will show you somebody who is probably being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me somebody who ineither prayerful nor thankful and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.
Fair enough? Those were easy.
Verse 21. “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Show me somebody who submits to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is Spirit filled. Show me somebody who does not submit to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.
Now go to chapter six and verse one and look at it in context. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”
In other words, three contrasts, three commands. On the third command you get three contexts. Context number one, wives and husbands; context number two, children and parents; context number three, servants and masters.
Here is what he is saying in verse one. Show me a child who is not submissive to their parents’ authority and I will show you a child who is not yielded to the Spirit of God which means if we want to lead children toward being Spirit filled, we don’t lead them toward the youth pastor, we lead them toward mom and dad because the measure of their yielding to the Spirit of God is whether or not when their parents say something they do what they are told when they are told and with a respectful attitude. That is what obedience is.
So, number one, we see the centrality of the home in the context here. He says, “You want to take the spiritual temperature of a young person, you take the spiritual temperature of a young person by whether or not they are submissive to the authority of their parents.”
That is the authority in their life. That is the spiritual authority in their life.
The spiritual authority in my child’s life is me. The spiritual authority in your child’s life is you which means anything that the Church does had better not rob spiritual authority from mom and dad.
I don’t write the mail. I just deliver it.
Secondly, look at the centrality in the home in his use of the Fifth Commandment. Look at what he says there, the next verse. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."
Now, as Americans, we are rugged individualists. So the first thing we want to do with this verse is we want to say, “That is talking to the individual child.”
“Child, you obey me, you will have a long prosperous life.”
No. No. Understand the significance of the Fifth Commandment. First of all the Fifth Commandment is the first of the horizontal commandments. There’s 10 Commandments.
The first four are vertical. The last six are horizontal. Number one on the hit parade of the horizontal commandments, the man to man commandments, number one is: Honor your father and your mother, which means there is nothing that the Church can teach a child that is more important than honoring their father and their mother.
Now, not only do we see it because of the position, secondly, we see it because of a promise. That is the first one with a promise. Folks, that’s huge. Do you know what the first four commandments are?
Commandment number one, “I am God. You don’t get another one.”
“Lord, can we get a promise with that one?”
“No, no promise. Just do it.”
Commandment number two. “Don’t even make nothing that look like me.”
“Ok, God, can we get a promise with that one?”
“No. Just do it.”
Commandment number three. “Don’t even mess with my name.”
“Ok, God. That is kind of serious right there. You have got to give us a promise on that one.”
“No.”
Commandment number four. “Don’t even mess with my day.”
“Now, wait a minute, now. You know, I want my boy to be a baseball player and most of the teams, you know, he have to go and he have to play on Sunday sometime and, God, I am sure you will...”
“Don’t mess with my day.”
“Get a promise with that one, Lord?”
“No promise.”
Commandment number five. “Honor your father and your mother.”
“Can I get a promise with that one, God?”
“You better believe you can. On that one I give you a promise.”
Do you see the importance of the Fifth Commandment? It is huge. Its order screams about its importance. The fact that it is the first one with a promise screams of its importance.
Now, listen to this. The Fifth Commandment was not for the individual child. It was for the community of faith. Here is what the Fifth Commandment is about. Remember, we get them in Deuteronomy five. In Deuteronomy chapter six what does he teach us? He teaches us how to disciple our children in our homes. He teaches us, “Listen, Israel...”
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Disciple your children.
““Can I give it to somebody else to do?”
“No. It is your job as parents.”
Listen to me. You are clapping, but almost everyone of you has a youth ministry in your church that is operating unbiblically. Don’t clap if you are not going to change it. And I am not talking about including more parents in what we do. I am talking about changing the entire paradigm.
Why? Because here is the purpose of the Fifth Commandment. God says, “You are my people, but you are about to go into a pagan land where they worship pagan gods. If you want to continue to be my people here is what you must do. Number one, you must have a boatload of kids. That is what it means to multiply greatly.”
By the way, when he sends them into the Promised Land, what does he say to them in Deuteronomy? That they are to multiply greatly so that when he sends them into the Promised Land they won’t disappear as God’s people. When he sends them into exile in Jeremiah 29 what does he say? Multiply greatly.
You want to avoid disappearing in the midst of a pagan culture? Out breed them.
Let me tell you something. There are some of us in the room that need to repent because of our attitude toward children and because of what we have said to people communicating our attitude and not the biblical attitude toward children. Some of us need to get on our faces before a holy God because we have mocked being fruitful. I have heard pastors from pulpit, from the pulpit talk about their children like they despise the number of children that God has given them. I heard a pastor from the pulpit talk about their third children being named Miny.
“Yeah, Eeny, Meeny and Miny because we ain’t having no more.”
That is a mockery before almighty God. Children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward.14 Our attitude from here is why a lot of people out there aren’t having enough kids.
It starts with us. And it all goes back to prosperity. The poorest nations in the world see children as a blessing. The richest nation in the world, we talk about children in terms of how many we can afford. God help us. We are dying one generation at a time because we refuse to receive the gift that God wants to bring through the womb.
Our attitudes. God says, “You want to continue to be my people? You do two things. Number one, you gladly receive these blessings that I give you called children. And, number two, you disciple them in your homes so that they don’t look like the culture around them.”
The minute you stop receiving the gift of God through the womb and the minute you stop discipling them in your home, they begin to look like the culture and the community of God begins to vanish before your eyes.
Two Christian families in this generation to get one generation into the next. I believe that is a plague on us.
It is amazing. We always talk about how we want more souls in the kingdom. If we were honest, here is what we would say. “We want more souls in the kingdom, as long as we don’t have to birth them, raise them and feed them.”
Finally, in case you don’t understand what he said by the context of this passage and in case you don’t understand what he said by him pointing to the Fifth Commandment, how about a plain, black and white, straightforward word?
Verse four.
And fathers... And fathers... And fathers... And fathers...
Everybody is trying to figure out how to make men excited about church again. Everybody is figuring out how do we challenge our men, how do we get our men involved? God has got an answer. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”15
It doesn’t get clearer than that, folks. The context of this passage says the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. The fact that he points to the Fifth Commandment screams that the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. And then, in case we didn’t get those two hints, he says it in black and white. “Fathers, disciple your children. Fathers.”
If we believe this then why is it that we have done everything in our power not to allow that to happen? We don’t expect that from our men.
I hear you. We go back to this whole thing. I understand that. But they are just not equipped. They just don’t know.
Here is what is interesting. If the people in your church are not tithing, you don’t start a ministry to tithe for them, do you? No. You simply teach them and expect them to do what the Bible says is their job. If it works for tithing, why don’t we think it will work for the discipleship of the next generation.
So what do we do with this? I am not telling you all to go fire your youth pastors tomorrow. That is not what I am saying here. But we have to completely revamp our philosophies.
In the last couple of minutes that I have left let me give you a few things that we must do because currently all of our evangelistic efforts amount to no more than filling up a bucket with a hole in the bottom. We are not growing. I want you to hear that today.
And, by the way, and this is all you out there you are going, “Eh, those 16 million, we are not going to.... of course not. We won’t go down to four million in just one generation.”
No. Listen to me. Our churches will continue to be filled, but here is what we do know.
Number one, we know because of Tom Raider’s research that was published in the Spring edition of the Southern Baptist Theological Journal according to their research, if their estimations are correct, somewhere around half of all Southern Baptist members are unregenerate.
By the way, according to the Nehemiah Institute, the Barna Research Group and the National Study of Youth and Religion, less than 10% of professing Christian teenagers operate from a biblical worldview. Less than 5% are theologically born again. By that, I mean they say they are born again and they trust Christ as Savior and Lord of their life. But they are wrong on the deity of Christ. They are wrong on substitutionary atonement. They are wrong on just about every important theological issue related to salvation. Only 5% of them theologically have the information that they need to be saved.
So our churches will continue to look big, but the overwhelming majority of the people inside will not be Christ’s followers.
So what do we do? Number one, I beseech you, if you don’t have a biblical view of children, get on your face before almighty God and repent. And if you have been mocking children from your pulpit and if you like one pastor, one pastor that I talked to recently said, “Brother, when you said that here is what I thought. The first thought that came to my mind was last week I talked to my people and I told them that we thought my wife was pregnant. And when I said that I told them that after we found out that she wasn’t I said, whew, we had a close call.” He said, “I need to go get on my face right now because I communicated to my people that children are a curse and a scourge and not a blessing.”
Do not make a mockery of children. You encourage people to welcome children into their homes. You throw a banquet when that woman walks into your church with six or seven kids behind her. You honor her and let everybody see you do it because if it weren’t for women like her we would have no future.
Secondly, you have a youth ministry in your church and you have a mission statement. You line it up against what we have looked at tonight in Scripture and if it is wrong on its biblical and theological merit, you crumble it up, put it in the trash and start over because it will not change until we change our entire mentality about what it means to disciple the next generation.
As long as you think it is your idea or it is your responsibility, as long as you think that our job in discipling the next generation means hiring some guy who is 25 years old and got spiked hair and has never raised a teenager himself, Lord, help us. Our entire mentality has to change.
Thirdly, and this is the toughest one to talk about, we have to adopt a biblical view of church leadership. I want to tell you something. There is two skills required of a pastor and only two skills. There are a lot of character qualities that are required, but only two skills. Number one, he must be able to teach. Number two, he must manage his household well. Our churches are filled with biblically disqualified pastors.
Titus chapter one makes it clear. If you do not have faithful children and if your children are accused of rebellion or dissipation you are disqualified biblically. And you hear that.
And I know we hear that and we go, “Oh, brother, that is harsh. Nobody is perfect.”
Listen to me. The same passage says... and here is what boggles my mind. Same passage, same paragraph, “must not be addicted to wine.” That says, “He must not be drunkard. He must not drink in excess.”
We say, “He can’t drink at all.”
Listen to me. I am not a drinker. I am not promoting drinking. I have never had a drink. But this is what I want you to hear tonight. Not drinking is easy for me and it is easy for most of you because most of you never drank and you stick your chest out and pop your collar because you don’t drink. It means nothing to you unless you have been an alcoholic. It is not hard for you to do.
Discipling your family is a different story and it amazes me that in the same paragraph we take one of those requirements and raise it and the other one and lower it.
You want to know why our families are in turmoil? Because most of you when you got hired at the church that you are at right now, they never even met your family. They heard you preach and voted on you when the Bible says if you are not discipling your children in an exemplary fashion you are not worthy of being called a pastor. From the top down we are wrong on the family. And we are losing the culture war one family at a time. And we have gotten so pathetic that now there is a euphemism in our culture called the PK. Why do we use that term as a euphemism? Because pastor’s kids who live like they were raised by the devil has almost become the norm. If the church’s incorporation has completely acceptable because all you have to do is stand at the top of a machine and make sure that people go in one side of it and out the other and that there is more of them going through the machine next year than this year, but if the church is a family of families and if God is serious about families being expected and equipped to disciple their children, then the people who stand at the helm had better be exemplary husbands and exemplary fathers.
And until we believe that we will continue to lose the culture war, one family at a time.
Listen to this from Richard Baxter in The Reformed Pastor. “If you are ungodly and teach not your families the fear of God, nor contradict the sins of the company you are in, nor turn the stream of their vain talking, nor deal with them plainly about their salvation, they will take it as if you preached to them that such things are needless and that they may boldly do so as well as you.”
Mist in the pulpit, fog in the pew. We will never be able to tell our children to raise and disciple a house full of warriors for Christ if we don’t begin to do it from the top.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Different Methods Of Home Schooling
by Ken Snow
There are a variety of methods that can be applied in the area of homeschooling. The method you select will have an impact on the curriculum and style of teaching. The following are some of the most popular homeschooling methods.
The Charlotte Mason method is named after Charlotte Mason, who is known as the originator of the homeschooling movement. She herself was a homeschooler, and she wanted to establish a basic plan for a complete and effective homeschooling program. The Charlotte Mason method emphasizes poetry, fine arts, classical music, crafts, and classical literature. This method is designed to encourage an awareness of literature and involves reading to the child every day. The child is then asked to tell what he or she has heard. This starts at the age of six. By the age of ten, the child is expected to write narrations in a book. Mason encouraged the use of nature diaries as well. The child writes observations of nature in the book as well. This creates a sense of respect for the environment in the child. Mason thought that good behavior and character were critical for a child's complete personality development.
The Eclectic Homeschooling method is a combination of several techniques. Innovative parents rely on their own judgment to select topics that make up the curriculum for their own child. These parents are always looking for the best products they can find to help them meet the needs of their home schoolers. Many of the curricula in this method are improvised. This means that, while the basic curriculum is established, parents change it to adapt to the individual needs and interests of their children. The curriculum is generally established according to the temperament, learning style, and interests of the children. These programs typically include visits to libraries, factories, and museums.
John Holt, a public educator in Boston, developed the 'unschooling' method. Holt believed that children learn best when they learn at their own pace and are guided by their own interests. He wanted to 'unschool' the child by requiring parents to take their cues from the children. This approach has no set curriculum, schedules, or materials. It is the most unstructured of the homeschooling techniques.
The Montessori method had its start in Italy. It was found that children go through extremely sensitive periods in which they experience periods of intense concentration. In these phases, children will repeat an action until they receive some measure of self-satisfaction from it. This method relies on prepared environments to facilitate learning. All materials utilized in this method are meant to satisfy the child's interior desire for spiritual development. Materials for this method range from simple to complex, and they are relatively costly.
Whatever method is selected, the underlying concept is flexibility and a strong interest in the child's own desires. The key is to use children's desire for knowledge to further their education.
To learn more about education and learning visit http://total-education.com
Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/different_methods_of_homeschooling_ken_snow.html
There are a variety of methods that can be applied in the area of homeschooling. The method you select will have an impact on the curriculum and style of teaching. The following are some of the most popular homeschooling methods.
The Charlotte Mason method is named after Charlotte Mason, who is known as the originator of the homeschooling movement. She herself was a homeschooler, and she wanted to establish a basic plan for a complete and effective homeschooling program. The Charlotte Mason method emphasizes poetry, fine arts, classical music, crafts, and classical literature. This method is designed to encourage an awareness of literature and involves reading to the child every day. The child is then asked to tell what he or she has heard. This starts at the age of six. By the age of ten, the child is expected to write narrations in a book. Mason encouraged the use of nature diaries as well. The child writes observations of nature in the book as well. This creates a sense of respect for the environment in the child. Mason thought that good behavior and character were critical for a child's complete personality development.
The Eclectic Homeschooling method is a combination of several techniques. Innovative parents rely on their own judgment to select topics that make up the curriculum for their own child. These parents are always looking for the best products they can find to help them meet the needs of their home schoolers. Many of the curricula in this method are improvised. This means that, while the basic curriculum is established, parents change it to adapt to the individual needs and interests of their children. The curriculum is generally established according to the temperament, learning style, and interests of the children. These programs typically include visits to libraries, factories, and museums.
John Holt, a public educator in Boston, developed the 'unschooling' method. Holt believed that children learn best when they learn at their own pace and are guided by their own interests. He wanted to 'unschool' the child by requiring parents to take their cues from the children. This approach has no set curriculum, schedules, or materials. It is the most unstructured of the homeschooling techniques.
The Montessori method had its start in Italy. It was found that children go through extremely sensitive periods in which they experience periods of intense concentration. In these phases, children will repeat an action until they receive some measure of self-satisfaction from it. This method relies on prepared environments to facilitate learning. All materials utilized in this method are meant to satisfy the child's interior desire for spiritual development. Materials for this method range from simple to complex, and they are relatively costly.
Whatever method is selected, the underlying concept is flexibility and a strong interest in the child's own desires. The key is to use children's desire for knowledge to further their education.
To learn more about education and learning visit http://total-education.com
Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/different_methods_of_homeschooling_ken_snow.html
Different Methods of Homeschooling
School at home: This is where parents try and re-create a public or private school classroom setting at home. There is usually a special room or place set aside just for this. It is very structured, usually using a packaged curriculum, and working around predetermined schedules.
Classical Schooling/Education: This is based on something called the trivium, which means three-fold way or road. The three stages (or ways) of learning are - Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric. Each stage is taught in order, and uses language, rather than images.
Charlotte Mason Method: This method uses "living books" that are full of characters and places that come alive, instead of dry, boring textbooks. It's focus is strongly on the liberal arts.
Unit Studies: A specific topic is chosen, and all subjects - Math, English, Geography, etc. - are integrated into that one topic.
Eclectic: Eclectic learners pick and choose from all the different educational methods to develop a unique learning style that works best for them.
Unschooling: This term was originally coined to describe "not going to school" or "learning without school." They believe that a person does not have to be in a school setting to learn, and that learning is not something that needs to be restricted to a specific time of day.
To see the whole article click here.
Classical Schooling/Education: This is based on something called the trivium, which means three-fold way or road. The three stages (or ways) of learning are - Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric. Each stage is taught in order, and uses language, rather than images.
Charlotte Mason Method: This method uses "living books" that are full of characters and places that come alive, instead of dry, boring textbooks. It's focus is strongly on the liberal arts.
Unit Studies: A specific topic is chosen, and all subjects - Math, English, Geography, etc. - are integrated into that one topic.
Eclectic: Eclectic learners pick and choose from all the different educational methods to develop a unique learning style that works best for them.
Unschooling: This term was originally coined to describe "not going to school" or "learning without school." They believe that a person does not have to be in a school setting to learn, and that learning is not something that needs to be restricted to a specific time of day.
To see the whole article click here.
Unschooling Equals Natural Learning
by Jeff Madison
How do you learn something in your post high school/post college life? If you sit down and think about it for awhile, you will probably discover that you pursue things you are interested in or that will help you in your life's direction. If you really think about it, you will notice that you don't really waste any time on things that don't interest you or that have no value to you. You will notice that pursuing these things are easy and enjoyable and that you sometimes you "loose track of time" when you are absorbed in pursuing these interests.
In effect, you are "schooling" yourself without anyone telling you what to do, or why you should do it, or for how long. In home education circles, this is called unschooling and it is applied to school aged children.
There are many misconceptions about unschooling. Many people think that unschooled children have no structure to their lives and that they sit around all day doing mindless things (usually visions of gameboy, X-box, TV, and movies come to mind). If you will do just a little research, however, you will find that this is simply not true. Parents who adhere to the unschooling methods do not just abdicate their responsibility in guiding their children's education, they just go about it a different way than is generally accepted by the masses.
The hardest part of unschooling is the change it requires in the minds parents. Mom and Dad have to start looking at education in a more holistic way. Everything in life becomes a learning experience, i.e. a trip to the grocery store becomes a lesson in math, consumerism, marketing, etc. Unschooling requires parents to think about education in a whole new way, the way you wish you had been allowed to learn...following your interests with no limits of time, space and age.
The role that unschooling parents play in their child's education is the role of facilitator not teacher. SHOCK! I know but that's because of our preconceived ideas about schooling, how children learn, and our whole role in it. This is not to say that a parent never "teaches" a child anything. The parent just chooses to do it in a way that follows a child's natural desire to learn. In our traditional thinking, a teacher chooses what a child need to know and when and then comes up with a plan to make sure it happens. I know, you are thinking that this doesn't sound too bad and you are right only the difference is in the method of application. In traditional schooling, the child if forced to learn things at a certain time...no matter what their interest or ability. With unschooling, the parent facilitator/teacher takes notice of what the child is interested in and provides them with the tools to make learning possible without an agenda. The parent usually has in mind things the child need to learn to function in society, they just don't stress about timetables and they find ways to intertwine the necessary learning of life into whatever the child is pursuing. Often times, the parent will see that the necessary things are usually learned by the child without much "pushing".
Most parents start homeschooling because they want to foster the creativity and curiosity they see in their child in a natural way. Most times, however, parents get bogged down by the pressure they feel to educate by the prescribed methods that the school system has invented to teach the masses.
Unschooling frees your child to love the process of learning because they are truly interested in what they are doing and are allowed the time to explore. They get to learn what they are interested in at the time they are interested in it. Parents facilitate, teach and guide as their child learns at their own pace...the way you choose to learn things yourself.
Wait. For more tips and helps on Home Schooling including informative articles on Unschooling visit http://homeschooling.tipsandhelps.com/
Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/unschooling_equals_natural_learning_jeff_madison.html
How do you learn something in your post high school/post college life? If you sit down and think about it for awhile, you will probably discover that you pursue things you are interested in or that will help you in your life's direction. If you really think about it, you will notice that you don't really waste any time on things that don't interest you or that have no value to you. You will notice that pursuing these things are easy and enjoyable and that you sometimes you "loose track of time" when you are absorbed in pursuing these interests.
In effect, you are "schooling" yourself without anyone telling you what to do, or why you should do it, or for how long. In home education circles, this is called unschooling and it is applied to school aged children.
There are many misconceptions about unschooling. Many people think that unschooled children have no structure to their lives and that they sit around all day doing mindless things (usually visions of gameboy, X-box, TV, and movies come to mind). If you will do just a little research, however, you will find that this is simply not true. Parents who adhere to the unschooling methods do not just abdicate their responsibility in guiding their children's education, they just go about it a different way than is generally accepted by the masses.
The hardest part of unschooling is the change it requires in the minds parents. Mom and Dad have to start looking at education in a more holistic way. Everything in life becomes a learning experience, i.e. a trip to the grocery store becomes a lesson in math, consumerism, marketing, etc. Unschooling requires parents to think about education in a whole new way, the way you wish you had been allowed to learn...following your interests with no limits of time, space and age.
The role that unschooling parents play in their child's education is the role of facilitator not teacher. SHOCK! I know but that's because of our preconceived ideas about schooling, how children learn, and our whole role in it. This is not to say that a parent never "teaches" a child anything. The parent just chooses to do it in a way that follows a child's natural desire to learn. In our traditional thinking, a teacher chooses what a child need to know and when and then comes up with a plan to make sure it happens. I know, you are thinking that this doesn't sound too bad and you are right only the difference is in the method of application. In traditional schooling, the child if forced to learn things at a certain time...no matter what their interest or ability. With unschooling, the parent facilitator/teacher takes notice of what the child is interested in and provides them with the tools to make learning possible without an agenda. The parent usually has in mind things the child need to learn to function in society, they just don't stress about timetables and they find ways to intertwine the necessary learning of life into whatever the child is pursuing. Often times, the parent will see that the necessary things are usually learned by the child without much "pushing".
Most parents start homeschooling because they want to foster the creativity and curiosity they see in their child in a natural way. Most times, however, parents get bogged down by the pressure they feel to educate by the prescribed methods that the school system has invented to teach the masses.
Unschooling frees your child to love the process of learning because they are truly interested in what they are doing and are allowed the time to explore. They get to learn what they are interested in at the time they are interested in it. Parents facilitate, teach and guide as their child learns at their own pace...the way you choose to learn things yourself.
Wait. For more tips and helps on Home Schooling including informative articles on Unschooling visit http://homeschooling.tipsandhelps.com/
Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/unschooling_equals_natural_learning_jeff_madison.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)