The Churches and Sexual Morality

ON THE first of June, 1970, the New York Times reported that venereal disease, one of the results of sexual immorality, has become “the nation’s most common communicable disease, except for the common cold.” Especially are increasing numbers of young people being infected. To many sincere persons it might seem that the churches, by their teaching of morality, would provide a bulwark of protection for their members. But do they?

Clergyman Norman Vincent Peale admits: “The Protestant church has shown increasing hesitancy where sex morals are concerned, a tendency to adopt a permissive or relativistic approach.”

This attitude was brought to nation-wide attention recently in the United States. In its issue of May 17, 1970, Parade, a magazine supplement carried in ninety-three newspapers, had the feature article “Religious Storm Center: New Sex Code.” It said:

“The United Presbyterian Church’s proposed new sex code​—one so liberal that it practically eliminates sin as a major factor in sexual relations—​is already sending shock waves of controversy through U.S. religious circles. . . .

“Entitled ‘Sexuality and the Human Community,’ and drawn up by a team of experts in various fields, the report repudiates all absolutes regarding human sexuality.

“Among significant sex moralities advocated by the Presbyterian experts:

“Removal of all restrictions against unmarried adults who wish to live together. . . .

“Removal of any stigma that makes homosexuals feel they are in irresolvable conflict with the Christian fellowship.”

Parade also observed:

“On adultery, for example, heretofore absolutely unpermissible in the eyes of the church, the experts’ report says, ‘We recognize that there may be exceptional circumstances where extra-marital activity may not be contrary to the interests of a faithful concern for the well-being of the marriage partner.’”

Although not endorsing it, the recent United Presbyterian annual assembly in Chicago voted, 485 to 250, to “receive” the report for study by its congregations. To many, their action sounds innocent enough. After all, they did not endorse it. But what a long way they have drifted from the teachings of Jesus Christ when they passively ‘receive for study’ a proposal approving fornication, adultery and homosexuality!

What the United Presbyterian Church has done is not the first action of its kind. In 1966 the British Council of Churches resolved: “The Council receives the report Sex and Morality which has much to contribute of value to the contemporary discussion of moral questions by both Christians and non-Christians.”

Yet what does this report say? “We should leave the individual parties free to decide whether a personal relationship has achieved the intimacy and tenderness of which sexual intercourse is the appropriate expression, either in cases where a marriage is intended, or where it is not.”​—Page 28.

And what does that mean? Given such instruction, a young girl may well conclude that if she has sex relations with a boyfriend, her parents should not criticize, and married people may reason that if they decide to have sex relations with someone else, their mates should not complain. Do you agree with such an outlook?

In 1963 a report entitled “Towards a Quaker View of Sex” was completed. Although it was not endorsed as an official view, the Society of Friends (Quakers) did help to finance the publication of the report, feeling that such would be good.

That report ridicules the Bible prohibition of homosexuality, and says: “One should no more deplore ‘homosexuality’ than left-handedness.” “An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual.” (Revised Edition, 1964, pp. 26, 32, 33, 41) Is that the kind of religious instruction that you want your son to receive?

Though these are philosophies that an increasing number of religious organizations ‘receive’ and view as worthy of consideration, what they are doing does not represent the Bible. In plain language it says:

“Flee from fornication.” (1 Cor. 6:18) “God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb. 13:4) “Neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, . . . nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom.”​—1 Cor. 6:9, 10.

So it should be recognized that the churches of Christendom, while professing to use the Bible, do not really represent it. That they are deliberately repudiating the Bible itself is evident from the statements of religious leaders themselves.

For instance, the Assistant to the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New York expressed church-approved views on New York radio station WQXR on the evening of April 6, 1970, when he said:

“Adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, and certain deviant sexual practices may violate Judeo-Christian standards of moral conduct, but when only adults are involved and there is no coercion and such acts occur in private, they should not be considered crimes. But they are in many instances, and these laws should be repealed.”

The “Judeo-Christian standards of moral conduct” that he rejects are those found in the Bible. In a similar vein the report Sex and Morality received by the British Council of Churches observes:

“Intelligent Christian opinion no longer regards the Bible, or even the New Testament, as a text-book from which one can extract authoritative rulings which automatically decide contemporary problems.”​—Page 19.

And D. W. Ferm, dean of the chapel at Mount Holyoke College, writing in the prominent Protestant journal The Christian Century, went so far as to say that the Bible prohibition of sex relations before marriage is “wrong and immoral.”​—Jan. 14, 1970, pp. 47, 48.

Are you shocked? If you are a church member, what viewpoint does your own minister take on these matters? It would be worth your while to ask.

The viewpoints quoted above are not merely isolated cases, nor are they altogether new. The training that these clergymen were given when they attended theological schools laid the groundwork for this trend. Thus, when the Presbyterian report came out, theologian Roger Shinn of Union Theological Seminary in New York, instead of expressing disapproval, said: “The report in regard to adultery is consistent with unfolding ideas in this field.”

But what are the fruits of those “unfolding ideas”? Venereal disease has reached ‘epidemic proportions,’ reports the news. Abortions are on the increase. In addition to those performed “legally,” in the United States about a million a year are done illegally. And clergymen who downgrade the Bible’s moral code are making a major contribution to the worsening situation.

Plainly, those who want for themselves and their families the protection afforded by the Bible’s high standards of morality must look somewhere other than to these churches for instruction.