Skip to comments.Protestants & Contraception
Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. After this, positions changed. So, did the Bible change, or did they?
I think they had a revelation, maybe from Joseph Smith.
You are correct. But it was after this particular conference that other Protestants approved. It caused a domino effect.
LOL! Good one! :)
“If I’m not mistaken, the Lambeth Conference is a gathering of Anglican/Episcopalian bishops.”
“The rest of the Protestant world - esp Baptists and evangelicals - has nothing to do with the conference or the decisions made there.”
Yes, but you’re missing the point. The entire body of Protestant sects - every last one of them of any note - rejected artificial birth control until Lambeth. The decision of Lambeth was quickly adopted by all major Protestant groups. Then, naturally, all of those same Protestant groups embraced abortion to one extent or another as well. Hence, only the Catholic Church remains pro-life to this day in the traditional sense of no baby killing under any circumstances. All other Christian denominations support baby killing or the culture of baby killing through use of birth control or outright abortion.
About 30 years ago I heard a preacher in a "respectable" Presbyterian church, up there in the pulpit in his robes, lament the practice of abortion, and then qualify his statement with "but so MANY of them!" -- that is to say, abortion was OK to him under some (how many?) circumstances.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared,
“The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family
and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of
restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.”
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, “Where there is a clearly felt
moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious
but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, “the Conference agrees that
other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.”
By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most
Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon
the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents “in such
ways as are acceptable to husband and wife.”
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches
in the 1900s.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty
years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians
before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
protestants in the historical sense died 60, 70, 80 years after the reformation circa 1517 or so. no such a thing exists today. now they are called churches. each one has it’s own principles. They are still labeled as protestants because they are not a part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. i don’t think there is a consensus of any thing between them. Baptist baptize. Methodists methodologize. Episcopalians episcopate. Reformed whatever reform. There is nothing uniform in whatever someone would construct today about protestant thot even in 1930.
Baptists are of no note then? Well that is the fate of faithful servants of Christ. It’s rare to see glamorous Baptist cathedrals. Their worship centers often look like school buildings.
The reason they fare as well as they do is that they have managed to glorify Christ more in their beliefs and practice than most other Christian congregations. The famous Baptist “once saved always saved” which robustly proclaims an amazing power of Christ is a very sweet savor to God. At least, God must say, someone is not selling Me short down there and playing pussyfoot with My power.
It’s only happenstance (as we see it) that Baptists became this way. They’re from a pietistic offshoot of the post-Catholic Anglican church. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about the lineage of that community. The name they go under is not pretentious; it is about a practice that they consider ceremonial. But they have also managed to affirm the Hebrew thread of Christendom, which is another big plus of blessing for them.
For them to be of no note... well that’s a lot like Jesus in His day too.
Rather than focusing on why Protestants changed their position on birth control, maybe the larger question is why do Catholics IGNORE their church’s doctrine on birth control and even abortion?
Correct. But before that no protestant group had ever approved of contraception. The Gospel’s statements come with some kind of expiration, after which they are no longer valid.
I know a few people who need to see this. Thanks man. Put them contradicting, lawless, logic-less, crazies in their place.
Est enim ecclesia!
do rubbers kill babies?
Not all Catholics ignore Church doctrine on the issues of contraception or abortion, although, as in any Church, some will ignore what they have been taught and stray.
I suppose, if you look anywhere you will find that none is without sin, of some sort or another.
“All other Christian denominations support baby killing or the culture of baby killing”
One must be honest.
Contraception is not baby killing.
“I am curious, is the Rhythm Method a form of birth control, or not? “
Yes sireee Bob.
I don’t know why people post stuff like this.
I can tell I am going to have a lot of fun with you.
Catholicism is its own screwed up form of Christianity. But you could ask the Saint of ScrewedUpNess for more about that.
Baptist i think would say they are are branch of Lutherans. via von Zinzendorf
and here in the USA they vote for baby killer politicians.
The idea of "the rhythm method" is to reserve intercourse for naturally infertile periods.
This is different in principle from artificial means of induced sterility, a.k.a., "birth control," akin to the difference between fasting and bulimia.
But there can be a similarity in intention, if couples are avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons. IOW, natural methods of avoiding pregnancy (not including withdrawal, which is akin to bulimia) are reserved for grave circumstances and hardships, which have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Artificial means of induced sterility, OTOH, are intrinsically immoral, like bulimia.
“Baptists are of no note then?”
Baptists by and large support both birth control (including the use of abortifacients like The Pill) and abortion in some cases (”life of mother”, incest, rape). Jerry Falwell, for instance, said those things on more than one occasion. Here, for instance, the SBC says it is okay to murder babies to save the life of the mother: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=21
Thus, the SBC - the largest Baptist body in America supports murdering babies.
At least that was a little better than what these baby murdering supporting Baptists of the SBC said in 1971:
“That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
Thus, Baptists in the SBC have a long history of supporting baby murdering.
do rubbers kill babies?
More of the same old crap.
“Anybody but us is evil”.
“If you don’t do what we say you’re stupid”
I had never heard of the Lambert Conference. But I am not Catholic.
In a way, yes, because they prevent God’s will from happening, i.e. the conception of a baby.
No, they just serve a culture in which babies are treated as commodities rather than the natural and blessed result of conjugal love.
Not only was this universally understood and believed by Christians - at one time - but also by pagans as well: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/18/mahatma_gandhi_birth_control_is_criminal/
How can any adherence to something that can minimize the possibility of pregnancy in marriage be anything but selfish? Even if temporary abstinence was to prevent the likely death of an unhealthy potential mother, how can even her safety not be considered “selfish?”
kinda like celbacy
“One must be honest. Contraception is not baby killing.”
1) Be honest. Name a country or culture which embraced birth control which did not soon after embrace abortion. Can you? Even one? No, you really can’t. The reason is simple. If birth control becomes viewed as morally sound in a culture then abortion MUST become viewed as morally sound as well because abortion is then NECESSARY when birth control fails.
2) The Pill is an abortifacient. Thus, that form of birth control - which is probably the single most common one - can, in fact, kill babies. http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/
“kinda like celibacy”
So God prevented God’s will? I mean, Jesus is God, and He was celibate, so if celibacy prevents God’s will, then Jesus being celibate prevented God’s will, right? So, using your “logic” God stood against God. Government school grad, right?
Having lived in Winston-Salem, NC, for 15 years, I can tell you that Count Zinzendorf was instrumental in the founding of 1 of the 1st protestant denominations in central Europe - the Moravian Church, which preceeded Martin Luther's seperation from the RCC. W-S had a thriving community of Moravian churches.
My understanding of the Baptist denomination is that a sect of Puritans fled England to Holland and essentially founded what would become the Baptist denomination.
“Even if temporary abstinence was to prevent the likely death of an unhealthy potential mother, how can even her safety not be considered selfish?”
Because the abstinence is mutual and voluntary and done out love and respect for the needs of the spouse and the family. It is sacrificial. None of that is selfish.
Broad brush? Like a Catholic assuming non Catholics are all prostestants?
That broad brush paints both ways.
... and neither has most of the world. Has nothing to do with the RCC. It is hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Church of England) every 10 years for the bishops of the worldwide Anglican communion. The AoC is the titular head, i.e., 1st among equals, of all of the Anglican Archbishops around the world. Well, that is not quite right either - there are splinter groups of Anglicans, and more forming all the time, that not longer recognize episcopal oversight from Canterbury.
Vlad, that same reasoning, with your answer, condones condom use.
Baptists are not a branch of Lutherans, lol. And, Count Nikolas von Zinzendorf was not a leading light of Lutheranism, but he was of the Moravians. Moravians and Lutherans have come to an understanding in America, at least. Maybe that explains some of the confusion, but depending upon the variety of Baptist, Lutherans are regarded as almost Catholic, that’s why I found it amusing. Even knowing about von Zinzendorf says to me that you’ve spent some time here, in the vicinity of Winston-Salem, or know people from here. It’s not common knowledge elsewhere.
post reply to me:
kinda like celibacy (sp)
but the conscious decision is still the same made by me. I decide: put on a rubber. withdrawl, thats the sex stuff. How bout office stuff. i find the morals easier to hide. (injecting office morals here) do i answer the phone when the undesirable calls. i choose to answer the phone. it’s what i do. or what i do not do. i suffer the consequences for my choices.
I think your characterization of Catholics vs Protestants is both inaccurate and unwarranted.
The Catholic Church teaches that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." Accordingly, it opposes procedures whose purpose is to destroy an embryo or fetus for whatever motive (even before implantation), but admits acts, such as chemotherapy or hysterectomy of a pregnant woman who has cervical cancer, which indirectly result in the death of the fetus.
Apart from indicating in its canon law that automatic excommunication such as that laid down for procurement of a completed abortion does not apply to women who abort because of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues or indeed of any grave fear or grave inconvenience, the Catholic Church assures the possibility of forgiveness for women who have had an abortion without any such attenuation. Pope John Paul II wrote:
"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and is peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Many, and in some countries most, Catholics disagree with the position promulgated by the Church; the views of these people range from allowing exceptions in a generally anti-abortion position, to complete acceptance of abortion.
In a 1995 survey, 64% of U.S. Catholics said they disapproved of the statement that "abortion is morally wrong in every case". On the other hand, a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center found that, whatever views they held on whether abortion should be legal, 53% of white Catholics in the United States considered abortion morally wrong, as did 64% of Hispanic Catholics. Among Hispanic Catholics, this percentage did not vary significantly between those who went to Mass at least once a week and those who did not, but there was a considerable difference in the case of white Catholics, with 74% of those who went to Mass at least once a week declaring having an abortion to be immoral, as compared with 40% of those whose religious practice was laxer. A 2008 survey found that 65% of American Catholics identified themselves as "pro-choice", but also found that 76% of these "pro-choice" Catholics believed that abortion should be significantly restricted. In the same year some 58% of American Catholic women felt that they did not have to follow the abortion teaching of their bishop. Only 22% of U.S. Catholics held that abortion should be illegal in all cases.
A 1996 survey found that 72% of Australian Catholics say that the decision to have an abortion "should be left to individual women and their doctors."
I don't think the Bible says anything about contraception.
The Southern Baptists are against abortion. They allow contraception methods that prevent conception. And they allow for abortion to save the life of the mother. And since God gave man dominion over the earth and responsibility for social justice on earth, that would seem to be within our authority.
From the same wikipedia article...
Southern Baptist Convention
During the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention, the delegates passed a resolution recognizing that "Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion", stating that laws should recognize the "sanctity of human life, including fetal life", and calling upon Southern Baptists to work for laws allowing abortion in extreme cases such as rape, severe fetal deformity, and the health of the mother. The stance was described in the media as "hedging" on abortion and a resolution opposing all abortions was defeated. W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."
Today, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, opposes elective abortion except to save the life of the mother. The Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists to work to change the laws in order to make abortion illegal in most cases. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has said that he believes abortion is more damaging than anything else, even poverty.
I think your characterization of Catholics vs Protestants is both inaccurate and unwarranted.
1). Abortion has been practiced thousands of years. It is known to have been done in Greece and China well before the birth of Christ. It has Bernard fairly ubiquitous throughout human history. It predates any effective contraceptive practice by thousands of years.
2). I have also read where “the pill” can at times serve to contribute to spontaneous abortion in instances when contraception is not achieved.
I agree that the availability of contraceptive methods has contributed to the increased sexual activity outside marriage and contributed to the increase in abortions and its legalization.
You know, it's obvious that you are chumming for hits on your blog with the provocative label of "Answering Protestants" as well as the history of your posting threads that are meant to stir up the Protestant vs. Catholic divide. Jim, in his generosity and in the interest of making Free Republic a site where religious as well as political views can be debated among Conservatives, allows this kind of thing to go on, and your peeps sure aren't shy about taking advantage of that generosity. It would just be nice if you could do a little historical search of the archives so you aren't starting up discussions that have already been beat to death. It's kinda boring.
Why say something that you have to know is false? Not "ALL" other Christian denominations support "baby killing" through abortion OR other birth control methods that do that. That is flat out wrong.
Do you think that saying this will somehow convince pro-life Protestants to leave their churches for the Roman Catholic one? That is delusional. IF someone goes to a church that isn't overtly pro-life in its statement of faith, then that is something they can work on from the inside to change. THAT should be the ideal, not some contrived gimmick that hopes to sour a Christian against his denomination hoping he'll flee to Catholicism because they claim a consistent viewpoint on the subject. Was the Reformation about that or was it about all the other areas where Catholicism stopped being orthodox? Sorry, it'll take more than that to sway us.
Actually all current non Catholic churches are branches of Luther — he was the first non-catholic. I did not say that baptists were a branch of Lutherans. only he might have been Lutheran at the time because he was maybe born that way (not Holy Roman Empire Cathodic) there wasn’t much else at the time he was born. How bout that winston salem connection to von zinzendorf. i visted the buildings and they are nice, there is a restaurant. ther is no restuarnt at the the orignal moravian site in pa
Moravians in America
The Moravians first came to America during the colonial period. In 1735 they were part of General Oglethorpes philanthropic venture in Georgia. Their attempt to establish a community in Savannah did not succeed, but they did have a profound impact on the young John Wesley who had gone to Georgia during a personal spiritual crisis. Wesley was impressed that the Moravians remained calm during a storm that was panicking experienced sailors. He was amazed at people who did not fear death, and back in London he worshiped with Moravians in the Fetter Lane Chapel. There his heart was strangely warmed.
Bethlehem 1754After the failure of the Georgia mission, the Moravians were able to establish a permanent presence in Pennsylvania in 1741, settling on the estate of George Whitefield. Moravian settlers purchased 500 acres to establish the settlement of Bethlehem in 1741. Soon they bought the 5,000 acres of the Barony of Nazareth from Whitefield’s manager, and the two communities of Bethlehem and Nazareth became closely linked in their agricultural and industrial economy.
Other settlement congregations were established in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. They built the communities of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz, and Hope. They also established congregations in Philadelphia and on Staten Island in New York.All were considered frontier centers for the spread of the gospel, particularly in mission to the Native Americans.Bethlehem was the center of Moravian activity in colonial America. i think your WaSau bakn was a ban from that family.
Amen! Jesus knows His sheep and they know Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.