Skip to comments.Evangelical Leaders are Ok with Contraception
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 dont 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 Forums publication, Theology of Sex, is a resource to help ministers and church leaders create healthy dialogue about Gods 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.
Did you know that “the pill” isn’t the only method of birth control?
Abortion is a sin. But barrier contraception is legal, moral and up to the discretion of a husband and wife.
As I said, please continue to have crotchety old celibate men and the pederasts among them keep telling women they must have a child for every year they are married in order to swell the papist ranks.
Many of those families will see this as one more good reason to depart Rome and find themselves in a Scripturally-faithful church which acknowledges no mediator nor redeemer but Christ.
“Until the Lambeth conference in 1930, all Christian churches condemned birth control as sinful.”
“ALL Christian churches” definitely does not include most Baptists who are inherently independent and not ecumenically minded.
BTW, every Catholic woman I know practices some form of birth control.
Some people just don’t want to see the forest for the trees. Aside from the direct consequences, taking the procreative aspect from the marriage bed objectifies women. Imagine being seen as an object and be found wanting. It happens.
In the rest of the country, the RCC is declining.
According to THIS PEW SURVEY
No other religion in the United States has lost more members to other faiths, or to no faith at all, than Catholicism, according to the new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey, conducted in 2007, found that 31 percent of Americans were raised Catholic, but less than 25 per cent of them still identify as Catholic. Roughly 10 percent of all Americans have strayed from Catholic roots, the study reported. Despite the loss, the survey shows that Catholics still represent nearly a quarter of the American population just as surveys conducted in the early 1970s found. So how does a religion lose so many members and continue to break even? It may well be that a factor in the Catholic numbers are the repeated waves of immigration, said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum. The study found that almost half of all immigrants coming into the U.S. are Catholics, most of them from Latin-American countries. The wave of immigration is changing the make-up of Catholicism. Latinos represent 45 percent of all Catholics aged 18-29 years, while only accounting for 20 percent of Catholics aged 50-59. Much of Catholicisms loss can be chalked up to previous generations of immigrants assimilating into American culture and remaining less faithful to their ethnic identities and religions, Green said...
In the marketplace of American faith, Catholicism is the big loser.
No other religion in the United States has lost more members to other faiths, or to no faith at all, than Catholicism, according to the new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey, conducted in 2007, found that 31 percent of Americans were raised Catholic, but less than 25 per cent of them still identify as Catholic.
Roughly 10 percent of all Americans have strayed from Catholic roots, the study reported.
Despite the loss, the survey shows that Catholics still represent nearly a quarter of the American population just as surveys conducted in the early 1970s found.
So how does a religion lose so many members and continue to break even?
It may well be that a factor in the Catholic numbers are the repeated waves of immigration, said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum.
The study found that almost half of all immigrants coming into the U.S. are Catholics, most of them from Latin-American countries.
The wave of immigration is changing the make-up of Catholicism. Latinos represent 45 percent of all Catholics aged 18-29 years, while only accounting for 20 percent of Catholics aged 50-59.
Much of Catholicisms loss can be chalked up to previous generations of immigrants assimilating into American culture and remaining less faithful to their ethnic identities and religions, Green said...
It's true several liberal Protestant churches are declining, but conservative Protestant churches are increasing. The Presbyterian Church in America is up almost two percent over last year.
In fact, the churches which have seen the most growth in Central and South America are reformed Protestant and Pentecostal churches.
As God wills.
You posted it but perhaps you didn't read it. I suggest you do so.
In case you didn't read the paragraphs you posted, I'll supply one of them for your understanding...
In the end, God doesn't give a pat answer about contraception. But he does provide a framework within which believers are responsible and free to make godly decisions. In fact, this framework does condemn most of the world's approach to contraceptionbut not because it's contraception. Rather, it condemns its fundamental self-centeredness (Ps. 10:4). Believing couples should soberly examine themselves as to whether they conform to this worldly selfishness and, if so, repent. Still, the biblical principles which we've considered seem to imply thatgiven right motivesGod does permit contraception.
Hopefully you have now read these few words from the OPC to comprehend the simple fact that much of the world's contraception is based on "self-centeredness" (no doubt alluding to the world-wide use of abortion as a contraceptive.)
In case you're still not getting it, I'll repeat the last four words on the subject from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which YOU posted...
"GOD DOES PERMIT CONTRACEPTION."
The Italian cheese stands alone.
Pinging you in case you, too, had trouble reading Wagglebee’s post offering comments from the OPC which clearly differ from Rome’s restrictions.
The rapes are terrible, horrible sins.
The children that result from such violent and forced sexual assault are blessings.
“Evangelical Leaders are Ok with Contraception”
A) All of them?
B) What is wrong with contraception?
“My point is that many who consider themselves evangelical try to escape the fact that they are part of Protestantism.”
Why would anyone want to do that?
Good questions. Read post 27 kindly offered by Wagglebee as some kind of slight against the OPC when in fact it seems to be a gracious, Scripturally-faithful perspective.
But barrier contraception is legal, moral and up to the discretion of a husband and wife.
Careful you don't get spiritual whiplash from that nasty case o' cognitive dissonance...
|by David Mills|
Sometimes a "progressive" Catholic asks me why my family and I became Catholics. As often rapidly becomes clear, the Episcopal Church we left is his ideal for the Catholic Church. We had married priests, women priests, homosexual priests, no doctrinal restrictions, evolving moral standards, and an official reason to be rude to the pope. What more could one want? How could we leave Paradise for the church of that oppressive Pole and then that oppressive German?
The regularly attending, basic-believing Catholic is usually pleased as punch to meet a convert. He rarely asks why -- and, when he does, wants only the most general of answers. Becoming a Catholic for him is just an obvious thing to do, and he is glad to have you around.
The sporadically attending, selectively believing Catholic is slightly bemused, because (if I understand him right) he seems to think of the Church as a heritage and a home and doesn't see why anyone else would be interested in it. He seems to feel as he would if you showed up to the Wisniewski family reunion or dropped into the Aquilina's for Sunday dinner or starting putting ornaments on the Rothfus's Christmas tree. Yet he is usually rather pleased that we did join, being a patriot.
The "progressive" is not so patriotic, if he isn't actually a traitor. So I will often say, in as cheery, boosterish, and cheerleading a voice as I can manage, "My wife and I discovered the truth of the Church's teaching on contraception, and after a while we just had to join the one body in the world that was telling the truth about it."
That usually shuts down the conversation. I am now familiar with the sequence of facial expressions that begins with incredulity and then, after a period ranging from half a second to four or five, moves to either annoyance, disgust, or fear. People have, when they realized exactly what I'd just said, edged away while keeping their eyes on me as if I might hit them from behind.(I am not making that up.)
Perhaps I should not provoke the "progressive" so directly, but I speak to him that way to find out how serious he is in asking his question. In my experience, he rarely wants a real answer, and quite often just wants an excuse to berate the Church for all her alleged sins. I haven't time for that kind of disloyalty, partly because (having heard all this as an Episcopalian) I think the arguments fairly stupid.
The Church's teaching on contraception was not the only thing that drew us to the Church, of course, but it ranked high, not least because the teaching so thoroughly contradicted everything we had been taught that it had to be either the truth held with supernatural aid or a delusion held for any number of foolish or corrupt reasons.
Everyone I knew, well into my early thirties, assumed that sexual activity without the "risk" of children was perfectly natural and that the number and spacing of your children was something for you to decide. Even among Christians, no one would have blinked at a married couple who said that they were not going to have children, as long as they in some way (perfunctorily was okay) invoked God's will.
When my fiancé and I went to our Episcopal church for the required premarital counseling, one of the first questions we were asked is what method of birth control we would be using. We didn't know well anyone with more than two children, and I strain to remember anyone we knew at all with four. I remember meeting, when I was about 30, a minister with five children and feeling, even then, that I had met a mythical animal.
I first began to wonder about contraception as a pro-life activist, when I noted (after reading Joseph Sobran in the Human Life Review) its emotional association with abortion: Contraception sometimes fails, and some people find this failure to be unfair, denying them the child-free sex to which they feel entitled, and thus are inclined to abortion to correct the "injustice" of having a child they didn't intend. They assume that if children were to be chosen and scheduled, the untimely, unchosen child could be rejected. Aborting him might be "tragic," but it was "a tragic necessity."
At first I thought the claim absurd, but then I heard some Evangelical Episcopalian friends -- mainstream conservatives -- say this very thing. They assumed that, for a married couple at least, sexual intercourse whenever desired was mandatory, but that having the baby that resulted was not. This didn't change my mind, but it worried me. Contraception kept bad company.
A few years later, involved in the debate over homosexuality within the Episcopal Church, I was disturbed by the difference between the conservatives' approval of non-procreative sex for married people and their loud opposition to non-procreative sex for homosexual people. They never got beyond the Bible verses against homosexuality, which seemed arbitrary without some idea what sexuality is for -- and as a result, the homosexualists who did have some idea what sexuality is for seemed to have the better arguments (though they were wrong).
I began to wonder about the end for which sexuality is given us, and to see that sexual activity couldn't be reduced to an emotional connection unrelated to the physical purposes of the organs involved. God had a reason for forbidding people to use their sexual organs with members of their own sex, but this reason implied that he intended them to be used only in certain ways even with a member of the other sex to whom they are married.
My assumptions about sexuality were further disturbed by the unanimity of the Church's witness. Anglicans, having no Magisterium, look to the Christian tradition for guidance, and traditional Anglicans have always weighted it very heavily. And here -- though "traditionalist" Anglicans were almost always in favor of contraception, and even used their opposition as an argument against Catholicism -- was a teaching about as universal as could be asked for.
These hints led me to read up on a subject to which I would have given no attention at all before. Gradually I, and my wife too (and on her own), began to understand and then to accept, and finally to appropriate for ourselves, the Church's teaching, which just a few years before had seemed to us utterly bizarre.
When we took it up as a practice, it changed our marriage as the articles had promised. Obedience led to the gift of our two youngest children, born after we accepted the teaching but before we became Catholics, and that addition radically changed our lives for the better. We couldn't imagine life without them, not just for themselves but for the kind of family their addition created.
We naturally noticed, as we grew closer to the Church, that only she proclaimed this truth that, to us, was increasingly self-evident and objectively life-changing. And she did so with a complex and extensive and subtle understanding of man, sexuality, and society, also found in its fullness nowhere else.
To us, the Church's insight and her courage in proclaiming it to a society that thought the whole idea daft was a sign -- one of many, but one of the very biggest -- that we were not yet where we ought to be. Gratitude for the life the Church had brought us, even when we remained outside her borders, drew us in.
David Mills is the former editor of Touchstone magazine and is now writing a book on Mary. He and his family were received into the Church in 2001. For a short popular explanation of the argument for the Church's teaching, he recommends Julie Loesch Wiley's The Delightful Secrets of Sex; for a description of the relation of contraception and abortion, he recommends Patrick Henry Reardon's The Roots of Roe v. Wade.
I don’t really know how to ask this w/o having you take it as being snarky, I really don’t WANT it to be snarky but I gotta ask; “Are Catholic women to be nothing but baby-making machines?”
Please link to such long posts.
One man’s story does not a trend make.
I think it is funny when catholics post a source from some protestant group as if we prottys had the same kind of beaurocratic nightmare to deal with that they seem to have.
I am a protestant, that doesn’t make me a presbetyrian or even a baptist and they really don’t seem to be able to grasp that line of thought.
Protestants are not so short-sighted. Protestants know it is the Holy Spirit, freely given by God to His own, who transforms lives and faith.
I know a number who have done so gladly until they and their husbands are too tired to make more. And several of them, by modern, secular American standards, "can't afford" the ones they have. Doesn't matter. Children are gifts from God and they are accepted for who they are.
Once a catholic woman is too old to become pregnant, does sex between her and her husband become sinful?
David Mills ping
“And several of them, by modern, secular American standards, “can’t afford” the ones they have.”
So who supports them?
Oh yes it does.
Don’t you have to have a “compound” to be a legitimate cult?
Baby making machines?
Hmm, we do have to ask when the white Protestant community plans on eliminating itself. Their numbers shrink every year in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. On one hand, we have contraception; on the other hand baby making machines.
And on the OTHER hand, we have the fertile third world and Muslim populations that are providing the replacements that in former centuries were provided by the resident population. The replacements will be from either your own young, or from immigrant young. There are no other choices, since the leaders of the country will not permit widescale depopulation due to widespread economic decay.
Baby machines versus zero population growth (actually negative population growth). I think I know which side I’m coming down on (6 children!!).
If you would care to answer my question, I would be ever so grateful.
No, but with the caveats or qualifications listed.
Thank you for your honesty.
Certainly. I will endeavour to engage in true and sincere debate. However, if things go south, then we must go with the times.
You and Pew are wrong in your conclusions. Spinning the data doesn't change the facts. Although many Catholics at various times of their lives do stray from the Church the estrangement is rarely permanent.
Regardless of the beliefs of your Church that in many ways parallel those of the German Protestant (Nazi) Church Hispanic, Indian, Filipino, Polish, Irish, Vietnamese, and Slavic Catholic immigrants are fully human and do count in the official numbers.
Spoken like the best Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger propagandists.
Your momma must be so proud...
lol. Pew and countless other studies and our own lying eyes say otherwise.
If immigration laws on the southern border of the U.S. were enforced, the RCC would dwindle considerably.
What a vile comparison. When RCs' arguments fail, they just sling mud.
Abortion is a sin. Barrier contraception is part of married life, "Doctor."
And my momma is very proud of me, as I am of my children. God has been gracious to my family.
Don’t be stupid.
Who supports them? Their family, just as always for centuries.
But you think its OK to mention the sins of a few homosexuals who infiltrated the priesthood in your posts to denigrate the Catholic and historical Christian position on contraception.
Mote and beam, mate.
Human sexuality is not something Rome gets right.
At least Rome still condemns homosexuality, and is actively rooting out the offenders.
Meanwhile, your sect accepts that which Luther rightly called "marital sodomy."
Very good. So many families are split.
My Presbyterian church does not accept, advocate (nor hide among its pastors) homosexuality and pederasty.
The mothers would disagree.
On the other hand, some homosexuals who infiltrated the priesthood, including even some bishops and cardinals, did indeed do these things.
We're getting rid of them, one by one. Of course, Satan knows the right address. He knows his primary enemy on this earth is the Roman Catholic Church. So he put a lot of effort into infiltrating and subverting the priesthood.
He already had your sect when you caved on contraception, so it wasn't necessary to expend that much effort with your little flock.
Name that tune. I doubt you can name even one credible source to corroborate your confabulations. However, here is another nugget for you to choke on:
ROME (RNS/ENI) The worlds Catholic population grew 11.55 percent between 2000 and 2008, from 1.045 billion 1.166 billion, which was slightly faster than the worlds overall population growth of 10.77 percent, according to new statistics published by the Vatican.
The 2010 edition of the Vaticans statistical yearbook shows that while the number of Catholics in Europe grew by 1.17 percent, in Africa growth was 33.02 percent, 15.6 percent in Asia and 10.9 percent in the Americas.
lol. I've given you a "credible source" and you dismissed it. So what else is new? I could cite a dozen sources and they'd all be ignored.
And let's not forget Rome, like the democrats, counts dead people and all those, such as my husband, who were baptized RC but who later left Roman Catholicism.
...according to new statistics published by the Vatican.
But you said you were looking for "credible sources."
Researcher finds strong link between contraception and HIV
The Birth-Control Riddle
Social Science Proves Humanae Vitae
"Contraception Is Wrong. Now Here's How You Use It . . ."
Suit claims birth control warning not enough
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
Planned Parenthood Uses Teens to Distribute Injectable Birth Control in Rural Ecuador
Study: Low-Dose Birth Control Pills Decrease Bone Density in Young Women
Spanish drug agency confirms grave effects of morning-after pill
Another Woman Dies of Hormonal Contraceptive in Switzerland
Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
The Re-Birth of Population Control: Human Life Seen as a Carbon Problem
Radio Replies First Volume - Birth Control
Abortion, birth control pill linked to breast cancer, surgeon says
God before contraception (Australia)
Fighting the 'contraceptive mentality'
Birth control pill creator regrets population decline
Polluted Water, Polluted Culture (one more consequence from contraception)
Abortifacients -- The Other Forbidden Grief
NFP and Contraception: Whats the Difference?
Wisconsin requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives coverage
Contraception: The history you may have missed and would rather not know
Why does Pope Benedict talk about Humanae vitae in the new encyclical? [Catholic Caucus]
New Evangelical Documentary Exposes Abortifacient Qualities of the Birth Control Pill, Promotes NFP
In Quiverfull Movement, Birth Control Is Shunned
Press in a Dither Again over Popes Reaffirmation of Catholic Teaching
How Birth Control Changed America for the Worst
If You Are Contracepting, You Are Part of A Very Big Problem
Vatican and Italian government criticize sale of RU 486 in Italy
New Condom Ads Target Catholics, Latinos
St. Padre Pio, Humanae Vitae, and Mandatory Abortion
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom Part 6 of 6 [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Sex Speaks: True and False Prophets Part 4 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and the Language of the Body Part 3 of 6 [Open]
Does Contraception Foster Love? Part 2 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and Cultural Chaos Part 1 of 6 [Open]
Priests still suffering from effects of Humanae Vitae dissenters, Vatican cardinal says (Must read!)
"Provoking reflection" (Contrasting views on Humanae Vitae)
Humanae Vitae The Year of the Peirasmòs - 1968
Catholics to Pope: Lift the Birth Control Ban
[OPEN] The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
Catholic Clergy Challenge Colleagues to Reacquaint Themselves and Their People with Humanae Vitae
White House proposes wide "conscience clause" on abortion, contraception
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE" [Catholic Caucus]
A degrading poison that withers life
Australia Study: 70 Percent of Women Seeking Abortions Used Contraception
[Fr. Thomas Euteneuer] In Persona Christi: The Priest and Contraception
A Challenging Truth, Part Two: The Day the Birth Control Died
A Challenging Truth, Part One: How Birth Control Works
Ten Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in 2008
The concept of the "intrinsically evil"
Pope Tells Pharmacists Not to Dispense Drugs With 'Immoral Purposes'
Massive Study Finds the Pill Significantly Increases Cancer Risk if Used more than Eight Years
Birth Control Pill Creates Blood Clot Causing Death of Irish Woman
Seminarians Bring Churchs Teaching on Contraception, Sexuality to YouTube
Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies
History of Catholic teaching on Contraception
Pope: Legislation "Supporting Contraception and Abortion is Threatening the Future of Peoples"
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
On Fox News Fearless HLI Priest Takes on Sean Hannity (may be indebted for saving his soul)
VIDEO - SEAN HANNITY vs REV. THOMAS EUTENEUER (must see!)
The Early Church Fathers on Contraception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Pope on divine love vs. erotic love
Conjugal Love and Procreation: God's Design
Being fruitful [Evangelicals and contraception]
No you can't or you would have. Your crass misrepresentation of the Pew study's statistics cites those who have left the Church but omits those who have converted to or returned to Catholicism. It is a very transparent and pitiful attempt to deceive.
Can't keep the dissembling straight, eh?
It's typical of the RC's lack of anything resembling a sound defense of their faith that they 1) make things up and 2) ignore what is right before their eyes.
The credibility gap lies exclusively with your representation of the Pew study. It's typical of OPCers lack of any objective standards for continuity or factuality in attacking the Catholic Church.
Now where are those "dozens" or was it "countless" studies you claimed?
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly." -- Proverbs 13:16
No matter how you try to repackage, spin or hide it, you wrote a promissory note you just couldn't cash. Just admit what we all see and move on. Next time try to be be a little more measured in hyperbole and a little more contrite when exposed.