Can Adventists Use Condoms? and other unnatural questions
by Stephen Ferguson | 18 April 2025 |
Should Seventh-day Adventists support reproductive technologies, including birth control and in vitro fertilization (IVF)? How about genetic counseling and gene-linked pharmaceuticals? Should I dye my graying hair? Can I wear glasses? Is it a sin to consume drinks with artificial sweeteners added, such as Diet Coke?
How about the non-human world? Should we spend millions of dollars saving endangered Tasmanian devils with artificial insemination? Or bringing the woolly mammoth back from extinction? Is it a sin to eat seedless grapes?
What all of these things have in common is that they’re not “natural” — that is, they involve human beings tinkering with nature to get the outcome we want. And some Christians have said this amounts to “playing God.”
In fact, every plant and animal we eat, wear, or use has been domesticated, which comes through ancient, long-form genetic-engineering. Have you noted the Bible’s “clean” animals are almost all domesticated kinds, for whom the curse of dread against humankind has been actively removed (Gen. 9:2)? Have you ever wondered what God meant when He called humanity His divine images, and then asked us to have dominion over the earth and subdue all creatures within it (Gen. 1:28)?
Reproductive technology
We live in times when Christians of all stripes are dealing with ever-evolving medical, biological, economic, and technological changes, all with profound ethical implications.
One of these “unnatural” issues is a set of decisions that fall under the heading of reproductive technology. To some Christians—Roman Catholics in particular—condoms and other prophylactics are a sort of shibboleth for this challenge. After all, what could be more “natural” than having sex and leaving it to God whether or not to get pregnant?
So when—if ever—is human intervention permitted?
Perhaps surprisingly, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has traditionally been comfortable with sex for pleasure in marriage, as well as with contraception. The one statement issued by the church about it, in 1999, is open to some kinds of contraception, and warns mildly about others.
In The Adventist Home (and in several other places), Ellen White gave this counsel:
“Those who are not qualified to take care of themselves should not have children.”
She doesn’t specifically argue for or against contraceptives, few of which were available in her day, but she does warn against couples having too much sex and therefore too many babies.
Catholics, contraception & IVF
As I understand it, the Catholic position on human reproduction is best set out in the papal encyclicals Human vitae (1968) and Donum Vitae (1987). What these documents emphasize is the role of natural law as a primary source for morality:
“The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.” (DV [3])
Note the term “rational order.” By natural law what seems contemplated is “in a theological context the law implanted in nature by the Creator, which rational creatures can discern by the light of reason.”
To be fair, natural law is biblical – albeit another “lesser light” – and is explicitly affirmed by Adventist theologians. Probably the best biblical exponent of natural law was the Apostle Paul, who said human beings even without God’s law still knew right from wrong:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20; 2:12-16).
Natural law
In emphasizing the importance of nature, Catholics are heavily influenced by Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who in turn adopted many of the ideas of Greek philosopher Aristotle (348-322 BC).
Aquinas defined natural law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good.” Underline the word reason. Aquinas suggested reason alone allowed humans to
“know immediately, by inclination, that there are a variety of things that count as good and thus to be pursued – life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct.”
Aquinas considered these “basic goods.”
Every organ or part of the human experience in turn has an obvious goal. As one commentator explains it:
“This participation is available to all humans independently of any reception on their part of divine supernatural revelation.”
Human intervention in the natural world is only justified if it does not frustrate those supposed aims of nature. For example, glasses help our eyes reach their intended goal – sight. Artificial sweeteners are perhaps closer to being morally neutral, as they do frustrate our digestive systems to a minor degree but might otherwise help the body in other ways, such as losing excess weight.
Meanwhile, contraception is said to openly frustrate the purpose of our sexual organs: the basic good of procreation.
For Catholics, there is “no prophylactic sheath issued at birth and no diaphragm issued with the female organ,” so contraception is viewed as “contrary to nature and is intrinsically evil.”
Personally, I don’t think Catholics are entirely wrong, and there is some merit to their ethical approach. However, we might also observe sex has benefits to a marriage other than mere procreation.
Moreover, we might legitimately ask if the Catholic bishops making rules, while bound by mandatory celibacy, aren’t themselves living an unnatural existence (1 Tim. 4:3)?
What is “natural” or “unnatural”
While natural law is useful, it runs into problems because human reasoning isn’t always very reasonable. For example, virtually all societies acknowledge murder is wrong. The Christian writer C. S. Lewis noted that even headhunters accepted this truth: Lewis observed headhunters justified cannibalism by simply viewing other tribes as non-human.
While the Apostle Paul accepted our innate sense of right and wrong, he indicated it was an imperfect guide. This is why God sent us the Ten Commandments:
“I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom. 7:7).
Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) likewise suggested we could not “dispense with God’s law and substitute a natural law.” Calvin said our consciences had been distorted as “a natural revelation that is suppressed and distorted in uprightness.”
Philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) probably offered the best critique of natural law by observing we can’t know what “ought” to be by what “is”—because the is we have is a natural world we know is fallen and broken, and itself in need of saving (Rom. 8:20-22).
Cats, canine teeth & gray hair
For example, this does not mean a cat killing a mouse is sinning (small “s”) in terms of a morally reprehensible action. God blesses the lion when it seeks and kills its prey (Ps. 104:21). Yet the fact the lion has to kill at all is clearly a reflection of a fallen world.
The lion is still subject to that malevolent force that twists the world around us, which is Sin (capital “S” and singular). It is Sin that lives within us and causes us to commit sins (Rom. 7:8,14,17).
Yes, we see God in nature, but we also see Satan’s warped influence (Matt. 13:25). We see this challenge in our own bodies. Consider that you were born with four canine teeth, whose apparent purpose is to help you eat flesh.
Scripture tells us we do not commit sin when we eat meat (Rom. 14:2-3). Yet the Bible itself attests that vegetarianism was part of God’s original plan (Gen. 2:9), and that meat-eating was only introduced into the human diet after the Flood (Gen. 9:3).
So how do we apply these ethical principles in a practical way? When I look in the mirror each day, I can’t help but be confronted with my ever-graying hair.
I think it might be true to say the loss of hair pigment is a result of Sin, although I don’t think you can argue I am sinning for something I clearly have no control over. I can’t pray the gray away.
It seems to me that leaving my hair to gray “naturally,” eventually turning white, seems a completely acceptable approach. Nonetheless, it seems dying my hair to look as God originally designed it – presumably back to its original dark brown color – is equally “natural.” Therefore, either seems a good and natural choice, so “judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1).
Back to condoms…
To return, then, to the original but more contentious examples of reproductive technology, we likewise ought to be able to have the choice to procreate (Gen. 1:28), and we ought to have the choice not to (Matt. 19:10)—even though having too many children (in some cases) and infertility (in other cases) are challenges with how the world currently is.
Couples who struggle with how the world is are not sinning, although they are impacted by Sin. In promoting “the ought,” reproductive technologies – whether to enhance or limit fertility – can be good and natural.
It isn’t entirely clear what extent, breadth, or limits God had a plan for Adam and Eve pre-fall. Were they to have a reproductive off-valve, or was Eve meant to keep having babies for all eternity? We don’t really know except that pain in childbirth was not part of the original plan (Gen. 3:16).
So again, don’t judge. Be kind to others in how they have to live their lives.
What “ought” to be?
Given that the natural world around us is broken and human reason is often unreasonable, my point is Christians need to be very careful in drawing too much of their ethics from supposed biological observations or mere human reasoning. I see this flawed approach adopted by Christians almost every day. From brethren who adopt the most cut-throat predatorial approaches to making money, to showing an utter lack of empathy for fellow couples struggling with difficult questions about reproductive health.
People often struggle with things they have absolutely no control over. Even if we are tempted to say someone else is being affected by Sin, we should think twice before picking up a stone and accusing them of sinning, of being unnatural, or of playing God.
Instead, we should ultimately draw our morality from the example and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps (in agreement with Hume) Jesus also drew His own natural law-like arguments about how the world ought to be, not simply how the world is. Jesus referred to the Edenic natural-world that was “in the beginning” (Matt. 19:8), as well as a restored world of the eschatological future that will be (Mark 12:25). And being an Adventist – someone focusing on the Second Coming that actually begins today inside you (Luke 17:21) – is to be a Christian who emphasizes this future Edenic world as it ought to be.
Yet here is the rub: this is an Edenic world we can’t actually see or scientifically test. It is a world we can only discern through the prism of the golden rule. In fact, Jesus upturned notions of what is natural or unnatural, as German theologian Jürgen Moltmann put it:
“Jesus’ healings are not supernatural miracles in a natural world. They are the only truly ‘natural’ things in a world that is unnatural, demonized and wounded.”
Just because wolves eat lambs on our fallen world doesn’t mean you have to.
Stephen Ferguson is a lawyer who specializes in planning and development law. Apart from his legal qualifications, Stephen has BA degrees in history and theology, as well as a Master of Urban and Regional Planning. He lives with his wife, Amy, and their two children in Perth, Australia – the world’s most isolated capital city.
To comment, click/tap here.
