Posted on 06/09/2010 6:00:15 AM PDT by NYer
Evangelical leaders are overwhelmingly open to artificial methods of contraception, according to the April Evangelical Leaders Survey. Nearly 90 percent said they approved of artificial methods of contraception. In a separate poll conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in partnership with Gallup, Inc., 90/91 percent of evangelicals find hormonal/barrier methods of contraception to be morally acceptable for adults.1
“Most associate evangelicals with Catholics in their steady leadership in pro-life advocacy, and rightly so,” said Leith Anderson, president of the NAE. “But it may come as a surprise that unlike the Catholic church, we are open to contraception.”
Indicative of their commitment to honoring the sanctity of human life, several leaders included caveats in their affirmative answers saying while they approve of contraception, they would strongly object to drugs or procedures that terminate a pregnancy once conception has taken place. George Brushaber, president emeritus of Bethel University, said that contraception should be used “with proper biblical and medical guidance.”
“Personally, I don’t believe there are any Scriptural prohibitions to most common methods of contraception,” said Randy Bell of the Association for Biblical Higher Education. “I can say from personal experience that God can defeat such methods if he chooses to do so.”
Many noted that biblical sexuality is not limited to procreation, but that its purpose extends to the consummation and expression of love within marriage. “Our leaders indicate that contraception can be utilized if all biblical purposes of sex are upheld and that it may actually aid in keeping the balance,” Anderson said.
Greg Johnson, president of Standing Together, approves of artificial methods of contraception, but added, “I believe the church does have a responsibility to communicate and preach the importance of family and that couples should not carelessly allow themselves to use contraception as a way to avoid having children and a growing family altogether.”
Two leaders said they would not approve or disapprove, but would leave it to married couples to decide based on the ethical and biblical criteria of a given situation.
The NAE Generation Forum’s publication, “Theology of Sex,” is a resource to help ministers and church leaders create healthy dialogue about God’s intentions for sex. For more information on the Generation Forum or the “Theology of Sex” publication, visit www.naegeneration.com.
The Evangelical Leaders Survey is a monthly poll of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Evangelicals. They include the CEOs of denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations including missions, universities, publishers and churches.
Placemark for your comment. Need to save this.
I agree with you 100%. Birth control is now so culturally accepted, most people are totally blind to the rot and harm it has caused and continues to cause. It instantly leads to abortion - oops, the birth control failed; we’ll just use this “other” kind of birth control.
All hormonal contraception functions, at least part of the time, by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Therefore hormonal contraceptives cause early abortions by their direct actions.
And when they fail...
...even the US Supreme Court admits we have to keep abortion legal because our culture embraces contraceptives:
“in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”
--Planned Parenthood v. Casey
( should have clarified that some contraception is actually abortion - IUDs as well, if they still do those devilish contraptions.
Separating sex from marriage and family leads human civilization into the abyss. It’s just that simple.
( should also preview...
;-)
The Pew study is factual evidence the blind do not see and the deaf do not hear.
When Christians move away from scriptural support, they venture into worldly opinion. I often find myself disagreeing with Calvin WHEN he moves away from scripture. While Luther and Calvin were great theologian and godly men, you'll find their view on either contracepton or In-Vitro Fertilization are simply not part of scripture. The article that NYer posted has very limited references (one-I think) and that reference is in regards to a man failing to be obedient to the will of God-not because he "spilled his seman". This is an antiquated interpretation in my view.
There is nothing in scripture that forbids contraception or In-Vitro Fertilization. One can only assume that if God has given us these tools, then we should use them as long as they are used within the context of God's divine purpose of a husband and wife.
IMO-it is rather disingenuous for Catholics to complain about contraception while permitting homosexual priest in the Church. The scriptures does have a lot to say about what is viewed as normal acts. What is carried on between a husband and wife is for them to decide as long as they do it within God's divine plan.
There is no divine plan for homosexuals-be they priests or otherwise. They are asked to repent of their sin. And, yes, forget the PC crap. Homosexuality is a sin.
And what is that?
I consider the term “baby-making machine” to be a personal insult, as if I lacked the cognition to make decisions for myself about what I value. Rather like asking a contracepting woman, “Does it bother you to be nothing but a semen-toilet?”
You are absolutely correct that the second of the two articles I posted from the OPC website states that God allows contraception (though in no way does the author recommend it).
However, I think you would be hard-pressed to find the author of the first article agreeing that God allows contraception. He states:
“This historical context alone does not prove that contraception is wrong. However, should we expect an immoral and hedonistic society to come up with genuine moral insight, contrary to nearly two millennia of consistent Christian teaching?”
http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=471
What do YOU think? Do YOU believe that Christians have gained some genuine moral insight that didn’t exist for two thousand years? If so, how is it that you think it escaped theologians for so long?
Thanks for this. David Mills is someone I often tlook to for wisdom, and he does not disappoint.
No. It's always a blessing to enjoy sex with one's spouse, even when it will be naturally infertile (a few examples: during the infertile times of the cycle, during pregnancy, after menopause.) That's because one of the two essential meanings of sexual intercourse, is the sharing of sexual love as the expression of the marital bond. As the Catholic Church teaches.
Thanks. I’ll send David a note and tell him how much I appreciated it.
***IMO-it is rather disingenuous for Catholics to complain about contraception while permitting homosexual priest in the Church.***
Harley, I have come to the point that I don’t prescribe oral contraceptives in my practice. But that being said I do find it amusing (in a sad kind of way) how many Catholics ask me to be put on the pill.
“I consider the term “baby-making machine” to be a personal insult,”
Take it however you choose to.
“as if I lacked the cognition to make decisions for myself about what I value.”
I am sure that you possess the cognition, I question wether or not under catholic law, you as a woman have the right.
Some of your fellow catholics post as if all sex that is NOT intended or could wind up leading to a pregnancy is sinful and wrong.
Perhaps they don’t mean to sound like that.
Hmmmm.... If you will give me a link or two so I can see what they’re saying, I will be glad to contact them and engage in a cordial RC-to-RC dialog.
Thanks.
The right to what?
The whole argument for contraception - like your original comment - is profoundly misogynistic, taking as its primary assumption that there is something *wrong* with the way women are. As the Wiley article referenced earlier said, it assumes that when God created human beings, He did it wrong. This is the Aristotelian view of humanity - that women are a failed attemped at a man - not the Biblical view.
Since the problem with women is that they're not enough like men, homosexuality is the obvious solution. Always ready for a quick sex act; no tiresome emotional entanglement or expectations that it "means something"; instantly ready to move on to the next partner; and of course, no terrifying infants.
What has a contraceptive society produced, if not women who seem to be fulfilling the dreams of homosexual men? The corruption is profound, and the self-contradictions apparently not even observed by those who celebrate contraception and IVF in the same sentence.
If one believes human beings are simply an evolutionary wrong turn from the more practically-effective gorilla, then none of this matters. What is confusing to me is how this could possibly be considered a part of Christianity.
“The right to what?”
“to make decisions for myself about what I value.”
Any Catholic who cites the example of Onan as an authoritative statement re contraception should do a study on the "kinsman redeemer" laws in the Old Testament (cf. Deut. 25:5-6). Onan wasn't guilty for ejaculating outside of a woman, he was guilty of willfully trying to utterly disinherit his brother's family from Israel (IIRC the entire Tribe of Judah, as Onan had no children of his own). Any other reading of the text is, IMO, a false exegesis.
"Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother. Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother." (Genesis 38:8-9)If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).
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.