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.
Excellent post, TC.
In your opinion, is sex sinful unless it is intended to lead to pregnancy?
Yes. Is that simple, categorical, comprehensive enough? Just ... yes.
ping
Outstanding post!
Whether or not a sexual act is intended to produce a child - that’s what “pregnancy” means, after all, that a child has been created - is not a factor in whether the particular act is sinful or not.
Thanks! Maybe I’m a radical feminist, after all: the unquestioned assumption that a normally-functioning female body (and female psyche) is BAD, needs to be FIXED, really bothers me.
I wouldn't say that the normally-functioning female psyche is "bad", just peculiar. :-)
I was assured just a couple weeks ago be several female FReepers that women are better at giving directions than men, of course none of them offered anything in the way of proof.
I’m a slave to the Mapquest, myself ;-).
I don't see where anyone has made that suggestion.
Let's look at it another way, do you believe that a sexual act that is INTENDED to PREVENT pregnancy is sinful?
I bought my wife a GPS and she still calls me all the time asking for directions. Her idea of a landmark is, “I’m sort of near that restaurant where we ate a few years ago and you didn’t really like it; I don’t remember the name of it, but I think you had a steak.”
“Let’s look at it another way, do you believe that a sexual act that is INTENDED to PREVENT pregnancy is sinful?”
I do not believe that any sexual act between two married, consenting adults is sinful, wether it is intended to lead to pregnancy or not.
I don't disagree with you, but that wasn't my question. I asked about sex that was specifically intended to PREVENT a pregnancy.
“I asked about sex that was specifically intended to PREVENT a pregnancy.”
Of course I don’t believe that is sinful.
My son runs the GPS for me, if I haven’t been able to get a Mapquest printout.
The very concept of this topic, in a way, is part of the larger question we’re discussing. Men and women are different, in obvious and less-obvious ways. However, the urge to define categories of “better” or “worse” that apply to either sex as a whole is, simply, a function of sin. Why else would we be, even “in fun,” setting ourselves up against each other.
The Catholic position is that the act must be open to life, not that every sex act is intended to lead to pregnancy.
Obviously, sex that is not fertile through no fault of the couple (i.e., post menopause, one of the spouses is sterile through natural medical conditions or for example post chemotherapy, etc) is morally licit.
Thank you for that polite and succinct answer. Some of your contemporaries could learn a thing or two.
If you don't believe that doing something specifically intended to prevent a pregnancy is sinful, what about something specifically intended to END a pregnancy?
I agree, I was just trying to inject some humor.
Agreed. I think it’s a foreign concept to many, but once one examines it, it is eye-opening.
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.