Posted on 06/11/2010 9:20:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A majority of evangelical leaders approve of artificial methods of contraception, a new survey reveals.
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 churches in the United States, released a report Tuesday showing that nearly 90 percent approve of contraception.
Several leaders, however, expressed opposition to drugs or procedures that terminate a pregnancy once conception has taken place.
"Most associate evangelicals with Catholics in their steady leadership in pro-life advocacy, and rightly so," said Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, in a statement. "But it may come as a surprise that unlike the Catholic church, we are open to contraception."
Evangelicals in the pews hold similar views. A 2009 poll conducted by the NAE in partnership with Gallup, Inc., found that at least 90 percent of evangelicals say hormonal/barrier methods of contraception are morally acceptable for adults.
Surveyed leaders in the most recent poll said the purpose of sex is not limited to procreation but it 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 noted.
The survey comes weeks after the NAE released a "Theology of Sex" resource to help inspire discussions about sex within the church and as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the country. The resource lists four reasons for sex, including "one-flesh union" to consummate marriage, procreation, expression of love to one's spouse, and enjoyment and pleasure.
Though overwhelmingly open to various forms of contraception, some leaders gave approval with caution.
While giving his OK, George Brushaber, president emeritus of Bethel University, noted that contraception should be used "with proper biblical and medical guidance."
And Greg Johnson, president of Standing Together, stressed that churches have a responsibility to communicate and preach the importance of family.
"[C]ouples should not carelessly allow themselves to use contraception as a way to avoid having children and a growing family altogether," he said.
Though some have argued that it is sinful to regulate the timing and number of children since children are gifts from God, many evangelical leaders believe otherwise.
Minneapolis preacher John Piper has stated, independent of the survey, that just because something is a gift from the Lord, it does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether one will come into possession of it.
Nevertheless, God is in control whether a married couple uses birth control or not.
"The hands of the almighty are not tied by birth control," he has argued. "A couple will have children precisely at the time God wants, whether they use birth control or not."
Randy Bell of the Association for Biblical Higher Education can testify to that.
"I can say from personal experience that God can defeat such methods if he chooses to do so," said Bell, who also believes Scripture does not prohibit most common methods of contraception.
Results are based on a monthly poll of the NAE Board of Directors who include the CEOs of denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations including missions, universities, publishers and churches.
Ironic.
While I’m sure it’s been more than four hours, hasn’t this story been posted several times already? Probably lots of comments already on the existing threads. Just saying...
Well, maybe a different source but basically the same story about the same study. 216 comments over there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2530810/posts
The sin of Onan is no better as says Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc...
Yep. and I don’t want to hear about wasting semen until women stop wasting their limited supply of eggs.
Contraception kills too.
Ping!
God calls children a blessing and debt a curse. Today we reject blessings and apply for a curse.
IMO there's a significant moral difference between hormonal and barrier methods of contraception. The article barely acknowledges the distinction, but it would appear that the NAE's approval acknowledges but doesn't disavow either one.
Consistent pro-life Reformed Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics all rightly reject "hormonal" and other anti-implantation (i.e. post-conception) methods because they are abortifacient in nature, killing the life of the newly-conceived child before the mother is even aware of having conceived. The Catholic Church stands apart in their rejection of barrier and spermicidal [i.e. pre-conception) methods such as condoms, sponges, etc. Their reasons for doing so have little to do with abortion per se, but rather with protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship itself (did I get that right, Catholics?).
IMO it would make for an interesting debate if we discussed whether natural family planning could/should be defined as a "barrier" method of sorts.
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).
It depends on your definition of “contraception”.
This was posted two days ago.
Contraception kills who?
yes. good explanation, Alex.
In fact consistent pro-life Catholics also realize, as does the Church’s teaching, that NFP can be used with wrong motives and become, in some sense, a “barrier method.”
A lot of women. The warnings on the ads for various low-dose hormonal systems are no joke. In the last three months, I've heard of two women who have had blood clots due to them. One died. There's a reason why the clinical trials for the pill were not conducted in the US (MANY women died during the trials). It's been reformulated so many times that any other medication would have been pulled from the market within months of it's release.
Contraception kills who?
A lot of women.
So then you have no problem with condoms?
Actually, I have a problem with married people who want to avoid having kids. Period. It’s a betrayal of marriage vows. I also have a problem with people who think cooking is work and those who don’t own an iron, but that’s for another thread.
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.