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. . . .

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?

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.”