April 21, 2004
S. Michael Craven

The sexual revolution of the 1960s was arguably one of the most significant cultural events in American history, certainly within the 20th century. It was significant in the sense that prior to the 60s ’s moral consensus, along with our public and social policies, was derived from profoundly Christian principles and values: in essence, the Christian worldview. That is not to say that everyone in was Christian, certainly not. However, whether or not a person was individually Christian, society nonetheless was ordered by and operated under distinctly Christian principles and values. It could be argued that this was primarily the result of the residual influence of earlier Christians and not the persistent efforts of contemporary Christians. Nonetheless society in general embraced these principles due to the fact that they were consistent with reality.

The sexual revolution was the first open rebellion against this consensus. It was, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against God's revealed standard in scripture. The sexual revolution was the "beachhead" from which the final assault on God’s absolute moral truth was launched. The battle to redefine sexual ethics has become the ground out of which springs the cultural rejection of absolute moral truth and ultimately, I believe, Christianity in America.

Unfortunately most Christians failed to recognize what was happening at the time. The events of that era were simply regarded as passing youthful rebellion. We failed to recognize that these values and attitudes pertaining to sex were actually the result of a clearly defined and methodically advanced worldview that ultimately seeks to replace the Christ-centered plan of salvation with a man-centered plan of salvation. (In essence, a naturalistic plan for utopia.)

At the very heart of the prevailing values and attitudes pertaining to sex is a false doctrine of salvation that believes that the “imposition” of sexual morality itself is the cause for much of what is wrong in the world. The naturalistic worldview espouses the idea that religious and social constraints or (“morality”) are artificially constructed concepts that inhibit natural desires. Of course this is true. However the difference lies in the false presupposition that man is inherently good and not inherently sinful. Our passions and desires do require restraint. Humanity is capable of both great goodness and great evil. It is the latter capacity that the natural man ignores. This defies both the biblical truth and the reality of human experience. The natural man or secularist is convinced that these “restraints” act in a repressive manner, producing guilt, which in turn, leads to behavioral pathologies that are ultimately self-destructive, this, despite the fact that the natural order continually reaffirms God’s moral truths. The goal therefore has been to remove these so-called artificial moral boundaries and the first area from which to remove them is sexual conduct.

However, what is ultimately at stake in the battle to redefine sexual ethics is the very basis of truth itself. Either truth is absolute and transcendent or it is relative and subjective, meaning that truth is individually determined, i.e. relativism – it is this idea of truth that is significantly replacing the true concept of absolute truth in Western culture. This is the great deception of our age. And the engine that has driven this philosophical shift more so than perhaps any other has been and continues to be the battle to redefine sexual ethics.

The great reformer, Martin Luther once wrote: “If I profess with the loudest voice [and clearest exposition] every portion of the truth except [precisely] that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides, [sic] is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

It is the concept of truth itself that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking and the battleground chosen in our generation is sexual morality. This is what I believe the apostle Paul meant when he wrote in the first chapter of Romans, “that men suppress the truth by their wickedness.”

At this point it would be appropriate to offer a brief argument for the existence of absolute or objective truth. Generally speaking, today the concept of truth falls into one of two categories, either absolute or relative. Absolute or objective truth is probably best understood by examining what it is not, that is relative. As stated by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in their book, The Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, “relativism posits that a claim is true relative to the beliefs or valuations of an individual or group that accepts it. According to relativism a claim is made true for those who accept it by that very act.” For example, the earth is flat was true for the ancients but is false for moderns. However, the mere belief by the ancients that the earth was flat, even in the absence of empirical knowledge; did not make this statement true, as reality would later prove.

Moreland and Craig go on to explain that absolute or objective truth posits that “people discover truth, not create it, and a claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independent of whether the claim is accepted by anyone.” This is clearly demonstrated in the aforementioned example. That the earth was flat was in reality false despite the fact that everyone or at least the consensus of the ancient world held to the belief that the earth was flat. The objective truth existed in absolute terms apart from their knowledge, awaiting discovery.

It is this concept of truth that is diminishing through what we refer to as postmodern thought. The postmodern argues that there is no absolute truth. (Ironically, this statement itself makes an absolute truth claim.) There is no factual or rational basis for the postmodern position other than theoretical yet this thought form has come to dominate Western culture and frankly done so rather surreptitiously. Few people would acknowledge or are even aware that they subscribe to postmodern thought; yet this is precisely how many people perceive and apply truth today. Given this climate it is incumbent upon us as Christians to speak to people from this perspective demonstrating that Christianity is not merely religion, but rather objective reality subject to apprehension by a rational mind. It is objective in the sense that the observable evidence overwhelming validates the truth of the Bible, creation and Jesus. Either one accepts this truth or acts irrationally and rejects it; there simply is no alternative.

Many in the contemporary church have been concentrating almost exclusively on simply sharing [or expressing] the Gospel or worse focusing on helping their members find self-actualization, happiness and prosperity. All while Satan has been working on changing the very concept of truth, so much so that people can hear and even profess acceptance of the Gospel and yet experience little or no change. Because by not truly understanding the full dimensions of our depravity and condemnation we do not comprehend our desperate need for salvation and repentance and the life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. Again, we must understand that when we speak of faith in Jesus Christ we are not speaking in mere religious terms; we are instead speaking in terms of the Christian faith as being the actual objectively true explanation of universal reality – a reality in which the creation apart from the work of Christ is hopelessly separated from the Creator.

Francis Schaeffer said: “Truth stands before conversion – Before a man is ready to become a Christian, he must have a proper understanding of truth, whether he has fully analyzed his concept of truth or not.” Schaeffer pointed out that: “The phrase “accepting Christ as savior” can mean anything. We are not saying what we mean to say unless we make completely clear that we are talking about objective truth [revealed in scripture] when we say Christianity is true.”[1]

Understanding truth as relative can result in a “relative” faith or conversion. A relativistic mind considers that there are many “truths,” all of which are individually determined for the primary purpose of giving the individual life meaning or merely to help them live in peace in a metaphysical sense. I refer to this as the “therapeutic gospel.”

When presented with the Gospel they may conclude that Christianity as a “belief system” may work for them, thus they “accept Christ” because this is what the presentation requires. Their faith, however, is rooted in their choice to believe and not the stark reality in which a person existing apart from God as a result of their rebellion lives in darkness and bondage for a hopeless eternity! The latter compels men to humiliation and repentance, this being the first step in dying to ourselves and surrendering to the lordship of Jesus Christ. This is what Schaeffer meant.

The Gospel presented on these terms to a relativistic mind becomes a “come to Jesus and be happy” proposition and not a “call upon the name of the Lord and be saved” reality. This results in nothing more than a pragmatic prescription for personal peace and prosperity, i.e. the therapeutic gospel. It is instead about what you have done and not the undeserved work of Christ on your behalf.

Therefore it is essential that we begin by helping people examine their own basis of truth. Schaeffer referred to this as pre-evangelism or pre-suppositional apologetics. To do this we must guide people through an examination of the foundation upon which their beliefs rest and demonstrate the point at which their beliefs conflict with reality. The subject of sexual ethics offers an excellent arena to demonstrate that false beliefs relative to sexual morality conflict with reality. In other words, once a person violates the biblical sexual ethic, which limits sexual activity to a lifelong marital commitment, there are inevitable negative consequences. I will illustrate these consequences shortly.

Additionally, a relativistic concept of truth has profound implications for believers, because relativism under the guise of faith makes us all too comfortable with sin. In addition, the relativistic mind tends toward a sensate faith and thus may not embrace the discipline to develop a “renewed mind.” This, according to Paul is the key to becoming living sacrifices and thus develops a rational basis for our faith which in turn deepens our convictions. In the absence of a renewed mind or rational foundation for our faith many may embrace Christian beliefs but still think like the world. This might explain why the testimony of the church is lack-luster and the unbelieving world sees little or no evidence of the life-changing power of Jesus Christ in the American church.

It is this understanding of the battle to redefine sexual ethics and its relationship to our culture’s concept of truth that the Church must acquire and assert in today’s culture. This is where we must stand, not strictly for the regulation of behaviors but for the preservation of truth! We cannot allow the ethics and morality of Christ to be separated from His authority. In doing this we inadvertently undermine His authority in the minds of men and women dominated by such a culture. Thus this shift in sexual ethics becomes a barrier to belief in Christ.

The Sexual Revolution as a Doctrine of Salvation

The sexual revolution in , which we associate with the hippie culture of the 60s, was not the origin of this worldview. It was merely its introduction into the mainstream psyche. In order to understand the origin of this worldview one must go back almost one hundred years beginning with Sigmund Freud.

Sigmund Freud asserted that "sexual love [is] the prototype of all happiness” Among other things, this definition implies that love is based ultimately on the pursuit of pleasure — a quest to satisfy the self. The Freudian philosophy of sex introduced a view of sexuality that was self-centered and as such no longer limited to the marriage covenant or any relational commitment for that matter.

This stands in direct contradiction to biblical sexuality, which is “other-centered” and as such intrinsic to the exclusive relationship of a safe and secure marriage.

In addition, Freud theorized that sexual morality was a social and primarily religious construct, which repressed the natural sex drive [or libido], which then produced guilt, which in turn led to anti-social and pathological behaviors. This was a significant step toward separating sex from intimacy and responsibility. This also served to lay the foundation for replacing the Christian basis of absolute moral truth with a subjective and relativistic basis under the guise of naturalism. In other words, sex was merely a nature driven urge and not a covenantal expression of the “one-flesh” union established by God. This concept was born out of Freud’s own worldview, which was contemptuous of Christianity as indicated by his statement; “Christianity is an illusion, a crutch, a source of guilt and pathologies.”

However, the noted British anthropologist, Joseph Daniel Unwin demonstrated in 1934 through empirical research that those cultures which held to a strong sexual ethic in which sex was strictly restricted to the marriage relationship were as a result more productive and therefore prospered. Unwin studied 16 civilized and 80 uncivilized cultures spanning more than 5000 years of history and found this principle to be an indisputable fact.[2]

Unwin observed, “The Cultural condition of any society depends upon its social and mental energy, or creative energy.” Creative energy, he argues, is that collective social effort which is directed toward the betterment of society and the common good. This would include those areas of culture such as science, justice, education, arts, and so on. This creative energy, he concluded, was greater within those cultures that held strong marital restraints on sex and greatly diminished in cultures with more liberal sexual ethics. More specifically, “Those cultures which allowed sexual freedom do not display a high level of social energy – their energy is consumed with meeting their physical appetites - they do not think large thoughts about the physical world - they are not interested in metaphysical questions regarding life and its meaning. In these cultures, life is for now.” In essence, a hedonistic society is unproductive and lacking in social vision.

Additionally, those cultures that began with a strong sexual ethic and later embraced a philosophy of sexual freedom for a period of at least three generations inevitably experienced cultural demise. There is not one single example in all of human history where these cultural patterns were not consistent with Unwin’s conclusions. Civilization and social order are directly related to the ideal of marriage as perceived by a given society. When society allows the separation of sex from the exclusivity of marriage the value of marriage is diminished. Once sex is separated from marriage, society’s expectations of procreative couples are decreased. With a decreased expectation upon potential parents the family is gradually redefined to accommodate different structures as being equal. These alternative family structures are devoid of the same societal expectations of traditional marriage, i.e. commitment, fidelity and selflessness. With the social reinforcement to lifelong marriage and parenting removed, history demonstrates that family dissolution rates increase thus producing the inevitable negative impact on civilization and social order. History is replete with examples that testify to this fact. The Roman, Babylonian and Sumerian empires are all examples of cultures that began with a marriage-centered sexual ethic, and later, degenerated into liberal sexual practices, which preceded their demise.

So, contrary to Freud’s assertions that sexual restraint was in some way counterproductive to human progress, Unwin’s research demonstrated the enormous social value and positive impact of biblical sexual ethics as confirmed in history and culture.
Unfortunately, the Freudian theory advanced while Unwin’s research faded into relative obscurity.

Following on the heels of Freud was Margaret Sanger who founded The American Birth Control League in 1921, which went on to become Planned Parenthood. Seizing this concept of “sexual repression,” Sanger elevated “sexual freedom” to a religious calling. She, like Freud believed that the repression of sexual desires was indeed harmful, theorizing that such repression would result in negative health consequences and the inhibition of intellectual capacity. Sanger quite clearly believed that sexual freedom was the instrument for ultimate human progress toward a utopian world.

She wrote; "Through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise"[3]

Sanger was also an ardent advocate of eugenics (a science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.) In Sanger’s ideal world, birth control would provide the means by which society could promote the reproduction of the intellectual and physically fit and diminish the reproduction of what she referred to as “the lower races” and the infirmed.

As Angie Vineyard, a research fellow at Concerned Women for , recently wrote in an article entitled Margaret’s Legacy, “Margaret became fascinated with eugenics – a key plank in her birth control philosophy. …Birth control would trim the burgeoning masses of physically unfit, mentally incapable and socially inept individuals that weighed down upon society. It would also conveniently allow Margaret to indulge her sexually promiscuous lifestyle and keep an unlimited number of lovers.”

Sanger was ultimately indicted on obscenity charges. Fearing prison she fled to leaving her husband and three children and began adulterous affairs with two married men. One of these men was Henry Havelock Ellis, the famed English “sex researcher” and one of the earliest advocates for “reforming” traditional Western sexual ethics. Married to a lesbian and afflicted with sex related disorders, Ellis’ research nonetheless served as a significant influence.

Then in 1948 and 1953 Dr. Alfred Kinsey published his now infamous works on male and female sexuality. Guided by ideological bias, Kinsey (a zoologist) determined to demonstrate that Americans were far more sexually deviant than was actually the case. This led to the general acceptance of the idea that the “perceived” sexual morality in was merely an illusion. As such, Americans became more and more desensitized to the efforts to redefine sexual mores.

Kinsey’s research, which would later be exposed as contrived, manipulated, and fraudulent, nonetheless provided a “scientific” platform for the reform of ’s laws governing sexual conduct and sex crimes. Funded by a large grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Model Penal Code of 1955 was rewritten utilizing Kinsey’s research to either weaken or dismantle 52 sex offender laws. For example, prior to Kinsey’s research, rape was a capital offense, punishable by death in 19 states. However, following the release of Kinsey’s “data,” which stated “that 95 percent of men were already sex offenders and most women were promiscuous – or wanted to be, the justification for tough rape, child abuse and obscenity laws was largely moot.”[4] As a result, the death penalty for rape was eliminated in all 19 states and victims became suspect, sex-offenders required treatment not incarceration, and pornography became more socially acceptable.

Kinsey’s research would later have a profound affect on the acceptance of abortion. Citing Kinsey’s research, Doctors Stone and Hime wrote Planned Parenthood: A Practical Guide to Birth-Control Methods in 1965 in which they state, “…88 to 95 percent of premarital conceptions were terminated by induced abortion. Of the married women in the sample, 22 percent had at least one abortion…”[5] This was research collected prior to 1953! What the authors did not reveal is that the so-called “sample” used by Kinsey included prostitutes and the definition of “married” was applied to any woman that had “lived with a man for more than one year.”[6] Nonetheless, these figures were influential in creating a perceived epidemic of high-risk abortions performed in “back alley” procedures.

Lastly, Kinsey, himself a homosexual and advocate of adult/child sex, urged numerous state legislatures to lower the age for sexual consent to ten. This was driven by his assertion that the only real harm experienced in such “relationships” was the result of archaic social conditioning which, in his view, ignorantly treated sex as a moral issue.

Kinsey clearly advocated the abolition of all moral judgments pertaining to sexual conduct; regarding sex as a mere biological drive devoid of any moral connotations. Kinsey too, believed that morality was the result of cultural conditioning and as such led to artificial distinctions such as “right and wrong, licit and illicit, normal and abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable in our social organization”[7]

Despite the fact that Kinsey’s research has since been revealed as scientific fraud using distorted population samples comprising convicted sex offenders, prostitutes and sexual deviants; it nonetheless has remained influential in advancing the “sexual reform” agenda.

Kinsey died at the age of 62 as a result of a pelvic infection that was directly attributable to his own sado-masochistic sexual activity. There is much that could be said of Kinsey’s influence on modern sexual attitudes and his role as the “father” of the sexual revolution, suffice it to say that there have been very few more destructive influences upon our concept of sexuality in the 20th century than his.

Following Kinsey there were two principle players that proved essential in moving this philosophy into the mainstream. The first was Hugh Hefner. An ardent disciple of Alfred Kinsey, Hugh Hefner launched Playboy magazine in December of 1953. In his first issue, he wrote:

“We believe…we are fulfilling a publishing need only slightly less important than one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report"

Few people today comprehend the full impact of Playboy magazine and its publisher upon the reshaping of ’s sexual ethics. According to Hefner, “Playboy freed a generation from guilt about sex, changed some laws and helped launch a revolution or two. Playboy is the magazine that changed America.

Hefner understood that traditional biblical values restricted sex exclusively to the marriage relationship. Thus the first obstacle for so-called sexual “freedom” was the elimination of the idea that men, in particular, had to be married to enjoy the sexual relationship. The elimination of this obstacle was accomplished through a campaign of carefully positioned messages telling men that marriage was a slow death; that the girl next door was really a ravenous sex fiend for the taking and manhood was determined by the number of sexual conquests. By promoting sex outside the relationship of marriage, the personal and social value of marriage itself was eventually reduced to an archaic institution and, as such, the societal expectation of commitment to marriage diminished.

To illustrate Hefner’s campaign against marriage, “Between 1970 and 1980, forty-eight states adopted some form of No-Fault divorce law.”[9] As Dr. Judith Reisman points out in her book, Soft Porn Plays Hardball, Playboy would prove instrumental in advancing no-fault divorce legislation both through the messages of the magazine as well as by financing “an army of young lawyers working to eliminate the legal protections their great-grandfathers had previously embedded in American divorce law for women and children.”[10] ’s family law policies.

While Hugh Hefner was popularizing the Kinsey philosophy through the first mainstream pornographic publication in another notable figure was introducing the Kinsey philosophy to 's school children.

In 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was launched at the Kinsey Institute. Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood was the co-founder along with Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey’s former partner. She would also serve as SIECUS’ first president. SIECUS remains to this day, the most influential resource for sex-education in ’s public schools. It may be surprising to note that the initial grant to establish SIECUS was given by none other than Playboy magazine. One can only conclude that Playboy’s interest in educating ’s children on sex would be for the furtherance of the Kinsey philosophy and the ultimate cultivation of future Playboy consumers.

The SIECUS Sex Education Curriculum Board was comprised entirely of “Kinseyans” committed to Kinsey’s philosophy of sexuality devoid of moral restrictions.

Kinsey’s assertion that early childhood sexual activity is natural and as such should be encouraged in order to counter “repressive morality” served as the foundation of modern sex education curriculum. The acceptance of this idea as being “scientific” led to the aggressive campaign to introduce ‘sex education” under the guise of personal health led exclusively by SIECUS.

Understanding human reproduction is certainly important. However, SIECUS introduced a “non-directive” approach, which was more philosophical than physiological offering no true moral direction. Children are encouraged to make their own choices based on what feels right for them. Today sex education curriculums offer little in the way of education related to the real consequences of non-marital sex. Our children are simply encouraged to explore the sexual wilderness without any awareness of the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. Three decades of “Safe Sex” education have resulted in the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world[11] and an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease that is the highest within the industrialized world.[12] Quite clearly this philosophy has been an abject failure.

Dr. Calderone has been recognized as one of the most influential women of the 20th century for her role in shaping modern sex education. Unfortunately this description is all too accurate.

In her book she stated: "A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality - for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance".[13]

As I said earlier, sex education is certainly important. However we should be teaching our children the truth about sexuality. God created sex for His good purposes and our well-being to be enjoyed within the exclusivity of marriage. We must equip our children with the biblical understanding of sex as good, wholesome and sacred along with the Christian apologetic for chaste and moral relationships. Doing so will recapture the real freedom of normal love and true beauty of sexuality that will compel our children to reject the cheap and empty version offered by the world. The idea of sex as recreational instead of pro-creational violates the natural order established by God resulting in devastating personal and societal consequences.

It is only within the physical and emotional security of a committed marriage that one can experience truly fulfilling sexual experience and sexual freedom. I must point out that God is most certainly not opposed to sex including intense sexual pleasure and satisfaction. What God opposes is the physical and emotional abandonment of those with whom we have sex.

Scripture informs us that our struggle is not against flesh and blood only, but against powers and principalities. What we must understand is that these “powers and principalities” often manifest themselves through false ideas and philosophies. It is these ideas and not just the advocates of such that we oppose. The concern for the Christian cannot be solely in controlling behaviors but rather in preserving the truth and its impact on our individual lives and families, which concerns all of humanity and creation.

Unfortunately the aforementioned "disciples" of this worldview have succeeded in completely reshaping ’s values and attitudes pertaining to sexuality. The message of sex without boundaries, sex without commitment and sex without consequences permeates every aspect of our popular culture today. As a result, the value of marriage has been eroded, sex has been reduced to self-gratification and mere copulation, while women are dehumanized and reduced to objects of sexual fulfillment.

The test of any worldview is in its ability to conform to reality. In other words, if a person were to live in exact accordance with a given worldview would their life conflict with reality at any point or work in concert with reality? In the case of this worldview, which seeks to usher in utopia by means of removing the moral boundaries related to sex, reality condemns this belief as being completely false. Just consider the very real consequences, which have resulted.

Pornography

In 1973 Americans spent approximately $10 million on pornography. By 1999 the pornography industry took in more than $8 billion dollars. This is more than all revenues generated by Rock-n-Roll and Country music, more than spent on Broadway productions, theater, ballet, jazz and classical music combined."[14]
Sexually Transmitted Disease

leads the industrialized world in STD's. Over 68 million Americans are currently infected & more than 15 million new cases are reported each year.[15] In the 1960’s there were 2 recognized STD's, today there are over 25, many of which are viral with no cure. [16]

Teen Pregnancy

leads the entire world in unwanted teenage pregnancies. American teenagers are more likely to become pregnant and have multiple partners than any other teenager on earth. [17]

Violence Against Women

Violence against women has increased 526% since 1960 and has the highest reported rape rates in the world, more than 13 times that of Great Britain and 20 times that of Ironically, those states with the highest sales of sexually explicit materials also have the highest rates of rape. [19]

Sexual Abuse of Children

It is estimated that 1 out 3 girls and 1 out of 7 boys will be sexually molested before their 18th birthday.[20] In 1973 there were 167,000 reported cases of child abuse in by 1987 that figure had reached 2,025,000! [21]

Abortion

Since 1972 there have been over 41 million abortions performed in . [22]

Sexuality Redefined

While 45% of adults polled believe homosexuality is an "acceptable lifestyle" [23] 85% of High School Seniors (The next generation.) believe it is acceptable and 86% believe homosexuality is determined at birth. [24]

The Destruction of Marriage

49% of all American families are now single-parent households. 11 Marriage as a choice has declined 25% since 1960. [25] In 1960 - 5% of all births were out of wedlock; by 2000 almost 40% of all births in were born out of wedlock. Illegitimate births are now the leading cause of single-parenthood ahead of divorce. [26] Couples living together have increased 72% since 1992. [27]

These are the real consequences of a culture that chooses to violate God’s moral law and history has proven time and again that such contempt for these moral truths is the inevitable path to societal self-destruction.

Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, observed in his study entitled “The American Sex Revolution in 1956: “The sex-obsessed society unhesitatingly breaks both divine and human law, blows to smithereens all values. Like a tornado, it leaves in its path a legion of corpses, a multitude of wrecked lives, an untold amount of suffering, and an ugly debris of broken standards. It destroys the real freedom of normal love; and in lieu of enriching and ennobling the sexual passion, it reduces it to mere copulation.”[28]

Why Marriage Matters.

God established three earthly institutions or organizations: the Church, as the agent of redemption; the State, for the preservation of justice and civil order; and Marriage, for the rearing of children and perpetuation of the Gospel. The battle to redefine sexual ethics in the West has already greatly infected all three institutions - the Church, producing apostasy and compromise; the State, appealing now to men, not God, as the final moral authority; and lastly Marriage, diminishing society’s commitment to this necessary social institution.

Previously I have discussed the spiritual implications of this contemporary philosophy of sex, but it is the social impact on marriage that represents the other side of this same coin. The destruction of marriage as the only acceptable relationship for sex is the ultimate goal of this agenda and clearly strikes at the heart of God’s plan for humanity.

Marriage was designed by God to be much more than merely an emotional commitment of two persons. Marriage is a God-ordained covenant through which God models and perpetuates the Gospel from one generation to the next. Marriage serves as the “organization” created by God to nurture, raise and train children. Marriage and family as designed by God is the foundation of social order and moral influence. Marriage is the first earthly relationship that we enter which requires us to shift the focus of our lives from ourselves to others. It is inherently “other-centered.”

G.K. Chesterton observed accurately when he said, “This triangle of truisms, father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations, which disregard it.” There has been no society in human history that has rejected this truth and survived.[29] We are either foolish or ignorant if we believe we will be the first to defy this truth and avoid the same result.

Marriage and sex are so interwoven that to attempt to separate the two with the intent of creating sexual opportunities outside the relationship of marriage only serves to undermine and diminish the importance of and commitment to marriage.

To illustrate this, conducted a study intended to chronicle the state of marriage in . The number one reason given by men in regards to their unwillingness to commit to marriage was the fact that “sexual opportunities were more available than in times past.”[30]

Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a life-long commitment that restrains and overcomes self-centeredness, self-indulgence and self-gratification. That restraint is fundamentally necessary for social order. When this commitment labeled "marriage" is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons for only as long as one or the other desires, it ceases to restrain our self-centered passions. This self-centeredness harms not only that relationship but others as well until it spreads throughout society like ripples in a pond. Abandoning the "others before self" concept of marriage for the self-serving concept of alternative relationships between autonomous individuals makes us increasingly narcissistic, ultimately leading to moral and social demise.

The last four decades have produced a wealth of sociological evidence supporting the personal and societal benefits unique to monogamous marriage. According to the eminent University of Chicago sociologist, Linda Waite: “Married people live longer, are healthier, have fewer heart attacks and other diseases, have fewer problems with alcohol, behave in less risky ways, have more sex -- and more satisfying sex -- and become much more wealthy than single people. There was one exception to this rosy picture: cohabiting couples do have more frequent sex. But they enjoy it less.” This is but a fraction of the overwhelming benefits unique to marriage that have been documented. The last four decades have provided unprecedented opportunities for direct observation of the deleterious effects that have resulted from the sexual revolution and its contribution to the dissolution of American families.

The evidence demonstrates that the cultural acceptance of non-marital sex alters the true concepts of marriage, commitment, and family ultimately undermining the institution of marriage and thus society as a whole.

Where Was the Church?

We must understand that those forces, which attack the Christian basis of morality in the area of sexual ethics, are themselves representing a “religious” doctrine. Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Every false worldview (pantheism, naturalism, etc.) seeks to answer the metaphysical questions of life and all require faith assumptions regarding their truth claims. Therefore they are, in essence, religious doctrine. Christianity does not require such blind faith assumptions given the historical, natural and prophetic evidence and yet we have allowed the culture to portray Christianity as mere religion in a mystical sense while every other man-centered belief system is regarded as objectively true.

This is where relativistic thinking has most profoundly infiltrated the church. Christians are all too often ready to withdraw from the moral debate for fear of “imposing their beliefs” on others. On the one hand we will make statements like, “I personally believe that this or that is wrong, but I don’t believe that it is my place to tell others how to live,” while on the other hand we tell the world that “Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life” in absolute and exclusive terms. Isn’t this “imposing” our beliefs on others? This is the great paradox in the contemporary church. We advocate an absolute [the Gospel] on the one hand while accommodating a relativistic application of ethics and morality on the other. Another common position is that of, “you can’t legislate morality.” Of course this is preposterous since every existing law is in fact the result of clearly held moral distinctions either affirming or condemning certain behaviors. While it is true that legislation does not produce moral choices it does reinforce moral standards by punishing immoral choices.

Being reconciled to God ourselves we are now in possession of the truth of the human condition; we have the answers that mankind desperately needs. We now know that we were separated from God by our sin condition and that it is only through the redeeming work of Christ on the cross that we can be reconciled to enjoy a personal relationship with the Living God. We also now know how man is to live, how mankind is to govern society, how we are to raise our children, etc. The Bible speaks to every issue important to man because what is important to our well-being is important to God.

This is why we must guard against the culturally imposed notion that advocacy of God’s truth in matters of morality is an imposition of “our” beliefs on others. It is not! When we advocate the biblical position in matters of morality and ethics we are not expressing a personal perspective, we are expressing the revealed truth of God. Tom Minnery in his book, Why You Can’t Stay Silent, said it this way, “These truths are beneficial for all people regardless of whether or not they accept the source of our beliefs that is God’s word. For example the quote ‘Thou shalt not steal’ is a very religious concept, yet it makes a very fine law even for people who don’t believe in the Ten Commandments. Views that stem from revealed truth are efficacious for all, regardless of whether or not they believe or disbelieve the source of that truth. That is why our society, because it is ordered morally, can remain so free. If we undermine the order, freedom will descend into chaos.”

Of course we must be careful not to advocate the ethics and morality of Christ apart from the authority of Christ who gives these standards meaning. I believe the reverse of this has already occurred, meaning that, we, (the Church) have allowed the separation of Christ’s authority from the category of ethics and morality. In doing this we have contributed to the irrelevance of Christianity and helped to create a culture that is morally adrift. This is why it is important to stand in defense of moral truth.

This is what it means to be light in a world of darkness, because mankind existing apart from the truth does so in utter darkness and hopelessness. This is one of redeemed man’s chief purposes in the world – leading others to an understanding of the truth and standing in opposition to the evil that seeks to destroy humanity.

Francis Schaeffer wrote: “When the apostle warned us to “keep [ourselves] unspotted from the world,” he was not talking of some abstraction. If the Christian is to apply this injunction to him he must understand what confronts him antagonistically in his own moment of history. Otherwise he simply becomes a useless museum piece and not a living warrior for Jesus Christ.” [31]

Because we failed to understand that the sexualized culture confronts us [Christianity] antagonistically, this moral philosophy has advanced with little or no opposition from the church. The result; Christian moral and ethical principles have been rejected and thus Christianity itself has become marginalized in the culture. has become a post-Christian and godless culture. ’s cultural leaders are no longer Christian, they are instead secularists determined to remove all influences of Christianity from society and government. Christianity is no longer perceived as offering any worthy contributions to culture and society. This is not the fault of Christianity certainly, but rather its representatives.

G. K. Chesterton so aptly stated, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

When one examines the current state of Christianity in as well as Western civilization as a whole it is not difficult to understand the reasons for this.

America is now the largest English speaking un-churched population in the world. We are the 5th largest un-churched population in the world behind ,

Christianity, in fact, is the only major religion in whose number of adherents is in fact declining while every other is experiencing unprecedented growth.

According to the American Religious Identity Survey conducted by The City University of New York in 2001:

Adherents to Christianity declined from 86% to 77% just since 1990.

Adherents to Islam have increased 209% since 1990.

Adherents to Buddhism have increased 269% since 1990.

Adherents to Hinduism have increased 337% since 1990.

Adherents to New Age have increased 340% since 1990.

Adults claiming NO religious identity have increased from 14.3 M in 1990 to 29.4 M in 2001 [33]

And while 77% of Americans classify themselves as "Christians" only 5% identify themselves as evangelical - which would include those who are also "born-again" but also believe in the accuracy of scripture, a personal responsibility to evangelize, believe in salvation by grace, and posses orthodox biblical views on God, Jesus & Satan. [34]

I think Chuck Colson best summarized the reasons for this condition in his book, The Body, "While the church may seem to be experiencing a season of growth and prosperity, it is failing to move people to commitment and sacrifice. The hard truth is that we have substituted an institutionalized religion for the life-changing dynamic of living faith...When compared with previous generations of believers, we seem among the most thoroughly at peace with our culture, the least adept at transforming society, and the most desperate for a meaningful faith. Our raison d' etre is confused, our mission obscured and our existence a people in jeopardy."[35]

The church [professing Christians] must first change before there can be any hope that the culture will. It is Christians, committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ in their own lives under the authority of scripture that are surrendered to purposes and use of God that can change the culture. It is the Spirit of the living God working through us that brings light into darkness and forces the darkness to flee! Christians conformed to the world cannot assert godly influence much less change the world.

The obvious question facing many believers today is whether or not we have a God-ordained responsibility to “change the world.” If we simply mean producing moral societies and “good” people, I think not. However, if we are motivated to advance and establish God’s truth in all areas of life for the purposes of bringing men to a saving knowledge of God, then yes, I believe scripture teaches that we do have this responsibility. This combines both the expression and demonstration of the Gospel. The cause of promoting and defending morality and justice are directly related to advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot abandon God’s truth in these matters and hope to maintain a relevant foundation for sharing God’s redemptive plan.

“…Truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes prey. The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, He was appalled that there was no one to intervene…”

Isaiah 59:14-16

The responsibility for defending and advancing truth in our culture depends on Christians, for we are the bearers of God's truth as revealed in scripture. To stand silent in the presence of counterfeit truth and false salvation is appalling to God. To do so is to 'hide our lamp under a bushel' - we are called to reflect the light of Christ in the world for the sake of all men.

Too many Christians today have embraced a "platonic spirituality" which leads them to make this sacred/secular distinction. In other words, we separate our religious practice from every other area of life such as education, social reform, politics and business.

Some Christians even argue that as Christians we should not be concerned with the affairs of men but only the affairs of God. The result is a "privatized" faith that has little or no impact in the world. We may express the Gospel but fail to demonstrate the Gospel. The fact is, God is concerned with all aspects of His creation and the commandment to 'bring all things under dominion' remains in effect for us today. The often-quoted John 3:16 tells us, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” God loves the whole world, His creation and everything in it.

Dorothy Sayers, the famous British essayist once said: “How can anyone remain interested in a religion which seems to have no concern with nine-tenths of his life?”

Until we abandon lives built upon the things of this world and throw ourselves completely into the cause of Christ we are likely to follow the path of every other Reformation country before us. Are we so naive to believe that we, while being unfaithful, will somehow be spared God's judgment?

We are the most resource rich church in the history of the world. And yet we seem powerless to even maintain the ground, which was secured by our forefathers in - men and women who were committed to Christ above all else. Where is that commitment today?

We must understand that the prevailing views, values and attitudes pertaining to sexuality are really the expression of a clearly defined and methodically advanced worldview. A worldview that seeks to replace the true plan of salvation in Jesus Christ and we must realize the urgent and overwhelming need to stand against this deception with the truth!

In conclusion, I want to encourage you to move forward in faith, trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit to grant you wisdom and understanding as you endeavor to equip yourself to confront that, which threatens the Gospel of our Lord and Savior in this generation.

© S. Michael Craven, 2004

Endnotes:

---

[1] The God Who is There, ã 1968, by Francis A. Schaeffer, Published by InterVarsity Press

[2] Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture, (London: Oxford University Press, 1934)

[3] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentanos, 1922), p. 270-71

[4] Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, ã 1998, 2000, by Judith A. Reisman, PhD., published by The Institute for Media Education, Inc., p. 222.

[5] Stone and Himes, Planned Parenthood: A Practical Handbook of Birth-Control Methods, Collier Books, , 1965, p. 235.

[6] Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, ã 1998, 2000, by Judith A. Reisman, PhD., published by The Institute for Media Education, Inc., p. 248.

[7] Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948 p. 678

[8] Hugh Hefner, Playboy, January 1989

[9] Leonore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution, (Free Press: New York, 1985), overleaf

[10] Dr. Judith A. Reisman, Soft Porn Plays Hardball, (Huntington House: Lafayette, LA, 1991), p. 78

[11] Centers for Disease Control, 2002

[12] Centers for Disease Control, 2002

[13] The Family Book About Sexuality, 1981, Mary Calderone & Eric Johnson

[14] News & World Reports, March 2000

[15] American Social Health Association. Sexually Transmitted Diseases in : How Many Cases and at What Cost? Menlo Park, : Kaiser Family Foundation; 1998. Complete report available free from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (1-800-656-4533), publication #1445.

[16] Eng TR, WT, eds. The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting the Sexually Transmitted Disease. ,

[17] Report on Teen Pregnancy, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), May 2002

[18] U.S. Dept. of Justice, FBI Crime Report, 1993, FBI Uniform Crime Report, National Crime Survey, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1990

[19] Leigh Ann Metzger, Understanding the Problem of Pornography. Pornography Committee Report Project, p.6

[20] Dr. Gene Abel,

[21] Dept. of Justice, FBI Crime Report, 1993

[22] National Right to Life Committee & Human Life International, 2002

[23] Barna Research, 2002

[24] Zogby International, 2002

[25] Census Bureau, 2000

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters – Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, Pinon Press(1997): p. 53. Reference to the work of Pitirim A. Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publisher, 1956), p. 3.

[29] Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture, (London: Oxford University Press, 1934)

[30] The State of Our Unions, The Social Health of Marriage in 2002, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead & David Popenoe

[31] Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There, p. 32

[32] American Religious Identity Survey, The

[33] Ibid

[34] Barna Research, 2002

[35] Charles Colson, The Body (Dallas: Word, 1992)