“What Do Protestants Believe about In Vitro Fertilization? It’s Complicated” by Whittney Barth

Trinity Episcopal Church in Fredionia, New York via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

---

This article is part of our “Religious Perspectives on Assisted Reproduction and Surrogacy” series. If you’d like to explore other articles in this series, click here.

---

In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that, under state law, the loss of embryos during the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) could give rise to a claim of wrongful death of a child under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, a law that dates to 1872. Undergirding the decision was the 2018 amendment to the state’s constitution “recogniz[ing] and support[ing] the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” The amendment predated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Whole Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The Alabama high court’s 2024 decision made national headlines and raised concerns about church-state separation. Chief Justice Parker’s concurrence defining “sanctity” by invoking centuries-old works of Catholic and Reformed theologians and the Bible brought an “unapologetically religious flair” to the discussion. 

As journalist Jack Jenkins recently pointed out, Chief Justice Parker’s views on IVF may be in the minority, even among Christians. As he and others report, while the official Catholic position on IVF has been clear for decades (even as many Catholics continue to use IVF), the positions of Protestant denominations vary and are sometimes unclear. This lack of consensus among Protestants is not new. Over 20 years ago, religion and bioethics scholar Cynthia Cohen wrote of the “broad range of views about the morality of employing . . . new reproductive technologies” such as IVF. In describing the foundation of these diverse views, Cohen highlighted the “high value” Protestant traditions place on “individual human dignity and choice,” while also acknowledging that “the way in which children are conceived and born, for the Protestant tradition, is not only a matter of individual concern, but also of familial, social, and Christian concern.” 

The number of White Evangelical Protestants and the number of white Mainline Protestants in the U.S. is roughly equal (13.4 and 13.3 percent, respectively), as is the percentage of members who report using fertility treatments or knowing someone who has (48 and 44 percent, respectively). This essay highlights a number of the historical documents, conversations, and convenings that have shaped different Protestant denominations’ views on assisted reproductive technologies. Given its institutional focus, these positions do not necessarily track the lived experiences or views of every member of those denominations. 

In June 2024, the Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution denouncing the use of IVF. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., with 17.6 million members and 51,379 congregations, according to a 2020 report by the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). The resolution, titled “On the Ethical Realities of Reproductive Technologies and the Dignity of the Human Embryo,” begins with several affirmations, including that human beings are “made in God’s image” and have a right to life and that “[g]overnments are ordained by God to safeguard human dignity and promote human flourishing at all stages of life.” The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a statement published in March 2024, that no prior resolution directly referenced IVF, although the Commission pointed to “20 resolutions over 40 years . . . [in which] Southern Baptists have been incredibly clear on the personhood and value of all human beings, especially the preborn from the moment of conception/fertilization.” Although the statement is clear in its position that IVF should not be pursued, it also calls for protections for vulnerable women against exploitation should legislation protecting IFV or ART move forward. 

Some Protestant denominations began studying IVF and its implications for their theological views in the 1980s, while others have taken up the topic in more recent decades. Although all join the SBC in affirming the view that human life is sacred, even if they disagree on when life begins, few follow the SBC in infusing the role of government with divine ordination. Some, like the Episcopal Church, call for regulation for the protection of vulnerable women or for the preservation of rights. In a statement summarizing its positions on reproductive issues and initially published in 2019 (and updated in 2024), the Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations explains that the denomination has supported the use of IVF by married couples since 1982. According to the same source, the denomination’s support for reproductive care extends as far back as 1930, when the global Anglican Communion, of which the U.S.-based Episcopal Church is a part, expressed support for contraceptives. Responding to new “developments that carry with them the need for concurrent healthy development of theological, moral, and sociological insights, the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health’s Report on Health addressed IVF, alongside birth control abortion, prenatal diagnosis and artificial insemination, in a report it prepared for the discussion at the 1982 General Convention, the triannual meeting of the denomination’s governing body. The Commission concluded that concern that IVF “grossly interfer[es] in the reproduction process” was not warranted, since the couples who used it had tried to produce a pregnancy through natural means but could not; the Commission likened the use of IVF to “the use of other prosthetic devices used to assist in life processes, such as artificial organs, limbs, or implants.” Although the report acknowledges the possibility of abuse, it concluded that such abuses “arise mostly when one or other donor is not a member of the marital pair.” The Episcopal Church’s 2024 summary calls for “moral discernment” for all involved in the “complex issue” of surrogacy.

In 1981, the Standing Committee of the Division of Theological Studies of the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A., convened a group of nine experts from medicine, law, and theology and representing different Lutheran denominations within the U.S. (the American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Church in America, and Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod) over a two-year period to determine “whether there are any specifically Lutheran approaches that could be applied to [IVF] or ethical problems of a similar kind.” The Committee produced a final report, which it commended to the churches “for study and discussion.” “While there was agreement that IVF in and of itself is not contrary to Christian values,” the report’s drafters explained that “there was disagreement about some of the issues associated with this process.” The group resisted the temptation to “create a synthetic stand” on the issue, noting “it is not in our Lutheran tradition to establish hard and fast rules to govern each face of human behavior.” 

The pan-Lutheran report summarizes the medical and legal aspects of IVF,  before turning to the theological aspects. Although recognizing differences in views about whether it is appropriate for the church to weigh in on social issues, instead of focusing solely on  eternal ones, the document concludes that the “church cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide moral counsel and direction to those who quite naturally would seek it.” The section begins with a discussion of the appropriate use of the Bible for seeking direction, admonishing that “we should resist the temptation to find in Scripture an answer or an imperative which will speak directly to every current social issue,” before turning to “theological orientations” that inform how Lutherans approach the Bible. The report then turns to discussing moral arguments against and for IVF, tackling: the introduction of the laboratory into the marital relationship, how to handle extra fertilized eggs, adoption as an alternative, the appropriate role of suffering, financial costs, potential “hazards to women” and possible “hazards to children” from a procedure that was at the time still very new.

Since the time that the pan-Lutheran report was drafted, the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America (along with the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches) merged in 1988 to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). The 1981 report can still be found on the ELCA website, along with an additional joint ALC, LCA, and AELC document on IVF from 1983 that was part of a “Procreation Ethics Series.”

Although represented by experts on the 1981 Committee, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has since developed its own additional statements and conversations about IVF and concluded IVF is contrary to its theological views. In 2005, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod published “Christian Faith and Human Beginnings: Christian Care and Pre-Implantation Human Life.” The 2005 report, sent to LCMS congregations around the country, affirms the view that life begins at conception and extends the application of the principle “[a]lways to care, never to kill” to beginning of life issues, a principle the Commission had applied in a 1993 report addressing end of life concerns.

In 2014, an LCMS symposium on infertility ethics sought to provide pastors and deacons with the theological and identified resources they need to be able to discuss infertility and assisted reproductive technologies with the people in their congregations. The denomination also maintains an online library on specific topics, including “Procreation” and “Bioethics.” At least two documents, both written by the Rev. Richard C. Eyer of Concordia University Wisconsin, predate the 2005 report and address IVF. In “A Review of Reproductive Technologies” (2001), Eyer raises three concerns: (1) that the treatment of stored embryos as “possessions” and that their potential destruction through an intentional act did not conduce to “understanding children as a gift from God to be received rather than a product for our use,” (2) that the adoption of or research on embryos “although well-intended, may lead to an industry of producing yet greater numbers of embryos for commercial gain,” and (3) that the use of a donor sperm or egg or a surrogate the marital “oneness is violated” and could be called “adulterous.” In a second article, “In Vitro Fertilization: Moral or Immoral?” (2002), Eyer echoes these arguments, emphasizing in conclusion that some technologies “reduce the bond of the biological and the relational to a greater [surrogate motherhood and cloning] or lesser [artificial insemination] degree,” placing IVF “somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum.” 

In 1994, the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference voted to adopt “Considerations on Assisted Human Reproduction.” The document covers several considerations, including why being without children should not result in “social or moral stigma,” why  involvement of third parties “introduces a number of medical and moral problems that are best avoided,” why decisions about the number of pre-embryos in the IVF process should be considered beforehand, why health care personnel should “disclose fully the nature of the procedures” so that couples can make informed decision, and why costs should be considered alongside “principles of Christian stewardship.” 

A 2002 booklet published in a series by the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics, and authored by Edwin R. DuBose, a senior ethics consultant and center director, and James W. Walters, a professional of religion at Loma Linda University, highlights the Adventist concern that the use of assisted reproductive technologies would contribute to the “depersonalization” of human life, but also concludes that infertile couples may in good conscience use medical technologies “when they are used in harmony with biblical principles.” A 2012 article by Cristina S. Richie in the Adventist Ministry magazine echoes many of the concerns stated in the 1994 document, with the additional of concern that our society through the media “bombard[s] us with advertisements for solutions” to infertility without regard to the “physical, emotional, and spiritual ramifications” on women.

In the section of its Book of Discipline focused on “Social Principles: The Social Community,” the United Methodist Church succinctly states its support for “the use of a variety of reproductive strategies for those desiring to have children, including fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo or sperm donation, surrogacy, and others.” It explains that healthcare providers should be consulted in the decision to use reproductive technologies and “the highest ethical standards, prioritizing the health and well-being of both women and children” should be the focus. The denomination’s acceptance of IFV dates to 1989, when a resolution was approved by the General Synod. In 2004, the UMC adopted a position on stem cells originating in embryos, with revisions taking place in 2008 and 2016. In a statement titled “Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Book of Resolutions 8006” (2016), the UMC explained that it had long made it clear that the denomination opposed the “creation of embryos for the sake of research,” it established with an “attitude of caution, not license” that embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used for the purposes of stem cell research. The UMC had just over 8 million members and  30,051 congregations in the U.S. in 2020.

Other denominations have stopped short of making official statements, conducting studies or publishing reports about IVF, but there is evidence IVF is being discussed at some level. For example, it does not appear that the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) has made any official statements about IVF (the PCUSA is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, with close to 1.5 million members and 8,851 congregations as of 2020). But, in February 2024, the Presbyterian Outlook, described as the “independent news publication” for the PCUSA, published an editorial by a female pastor who had gone through the IVF process. The Rev. Elizabeth N.H. Link urged Presbyterians to engage with “mercy over strict interpretation of the law.” The PCUSA engagement with reproductive issues such as abortion dates back to the 1960s, but in 1983 the denomination also specifically affirmed its agreement with Roe v. Wade. The General Assembly published a brief summary of the denomination’s position in 2019 in the wake of Alabama’s passage of the Human Life Protection Act. 

On their websites, some denominations point their members to resources theologically in step with the denomination’s views or provide responses to questions about IVF, as on this 2006 Q & A page on the website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), does not frequently make doctrinal declarations because it believes the Bible to be “the final authority in all matters of doctrine.” The denomination has made an official doctrinal statement in one reproduction-related issue. Abortion is one of few issues that WELC concluded required a doctrinal statement because it needed to distance itself from what it perceived as pro-choice advocacy by other Lutheran denominations in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. WELS directs members to Christian Life Resources, an extra-denominational non-profit organization whose “IVF 101” fact sheet emphasizes that only “20% of IVF procedures produce a live birth: and that80% of the time the procedure ends in death.” The fact sheet  also explains a number of risks associated with IVF, including a detailed list of possible medical issues. The document concludes by affirming that life begins at conception and that, while “a child born as the result of an IVF procedure is a blessing,” ultimately, “that blessing is overshadowed by the number of children that had to die to bring about a live birth.”

Assisted reproductive technologies have come a long way since the 1980s, both in terms of scientific development and cultural acceptance. Although white Evangelical Protestants are more likely than White Mainline Protestants and Protestants of color to report that their churches discuss difficult topics like abortion well (81 percent versus 66 percent for White Mainline Protestants, 62 percent for Black Protestants, and 64 percent for Hispanic Protestants) and more White Evangelicals (75 percent) than White Mainline Protestants (68 percent) and Hispanic Protestants (69 percent) (but not more than Black Protestants, 79 percent) believe that it is important for churches to provide a “faith perspective on pressing social concerns,” roughly the same percentage—and less than half—of both groups (44 and 43 percent) think congregations “should get involved in social issues.” With close to half of the Mainline Protestants and White Evangelicals reporting that they have used fertility treatments or know someone who has (48 and 44 percent, respectively), it remains to be seen whether denominations that have more recently identified IVF as being contrary to their theological values will face challenges convincing the faithful to follow suit. 

Twenty years after the publication of Cynthia Cohen’s article, the broad range of views on assisted reproductive technologies among Protestants shows little sign of coalescing. All affirm in some way the belief that humans are made in the image of God. Many share concerns about “depersonalization” resulting from different aspects of the IVF process and about infertility’s potential impact on women and on marriages. At a certain level of abstraction, this can look like common ground. But that ground does not remain common for long once that belief and those concerns become positions. Even the denominational statements and resources mentioned in this essay have different purposes, ranging from the pastoral to the educational to the policy-setting, and sometimes all three. The diversity of views on IVF within just a subset of one religious tradition raises perennial and timely challenges to any legal effort to inscribe theological positions into law.  ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Barth, Whittney. “What Do Protestants Believe about In Vitro Fertilization? It’s Complicated.” Canopy Forum, October 16, 2024. https://canopyforum.org/2024/10/16/what-do-protestants-believe-about-in-vitro-fertilization-its-complicated/.

Recent Posts