At the Church Congress held this autumn at Birmingham I was honoured by
an invitation to speak on "Sexual Relationships."
The subject-matter of that speech has aroused widespread interest and
some controversy. It is being published in response to numerous requests
and because most of the reports, being of necessity condensed,
inadequately and even in some instances incorrectly set forth the views
I endeavoured to champion; for any speech on a subject so difficult to
handle needs to be read in its entirety if misapprehensions are to be
avoided.
And first, may I thank numerous correspondents; and those in
disagreement equally with those in agreement with me. One and all they
bear testimony, if indeed such were needed, to how widespread and
responsible is the interest on this question, and therefore to the
wisdom of its full consideration. Amongst the letters are intimate human
documents which pathetically disclose, as does professional experience,
how frequently happiness is marred by ignorance of either the principles
or the methods which should condition the true conception of sexual
relationships.
I elected to deal with these relationships in their healthy rather than
their morbid aspects, because the study of health is a sure way to
lessen disease. Mere denunciations of evil serve but small purpose. The
aim of statesmanship is rather to seek out causes and ponder over
remedies, and prominent among remedies is surely the study of the
significance and purport of sex love in a well-ordered and Christian
community and provision for its healthy outlet. To this the first part
of my speech was devoted. The view there upheld has brought forth a
large measure of agreement and no reasoned disagreement.
The second part of my speech dealing with birth control (or what in
strict accuracy should be called conception control) has aroused more
controversy, but I venture to think that some, at least, of the
criticism directed against my argument will disappear with a perusal of
this full text of my speech. Therein will be found condemnation of
infertile marriages and a strong plea that children are essential to the
health and happiness of man and woman, are necessary to each other and
of vital importance to the nation.
The difference between my critics and myself is not as to the vital
necessity of the family following marriage, but rather this--they would
like to see the large families prevalent fifty years ago restored (and
where means and circumstances are favourable, such large families may be
the source of much happiness); whereas under present-day conditions I
should regard them as seldom attainable and desirable, and would favour
smaller families of children born at predetermined intervals.
A married couple who have produced four children in twenty years cannot
be said to have ignored the precept "be fruitful and multiply and
replenish the earth" because they have so selected the times for the
conceptions of their children as to enable them to give those children a
better upbringing rather than have selfishly left the sequence of their
offspring to blind chance.
The argument that the nation should foster large families in order more
quickly to people the untenanted portions of the Empire, and so add to
the strength and wealth of the British Dominions, requires serious
attention, not in isolation, but in conjunction with other
considerations, and calls forth varying opinions from economists.
On the other hand, emigration into _foreign_ lands would seem to be a
source of weakness to a nation. The feeding, clothing and educating of a
young Briton cost the nation a definite sum of money, say, L400; if at
the age of twenty, when he is ready to produce, that young Briton
emigrates to a foreign state, he is a definite loss to the country of
his birth and the country of his adoption is the gainer.
From another standpoint the criticism is made that I have not urged the
paramount necessity of diminishing the population of these islands. With
the economic soundness of this view others are better fitted to deal,
but no economic considerations would outweigh the importance of child
life inspiring the homes of the land, and if the number and sequence of
children can be regulated by the parents' circumstances, these homes
will increase in number, will start when parents are younger and confer
greater benefits alike on the family and the State. If need be, the
State could grant a progressive rebate of taxation, and educational
facilities for each of three children born after the second and where
the father is twenty-five years of age or upwards.
It is held by some that artificial birth control is contrary to
Christian morals. This is the view firmly held by the Roman Catholic
Church, and since the governance of the Roman communion is based on
"authority," its decisions are binding on its members and command our
respect. But pronouncements of Protestant communions do not owe their
force to "authority," but to the conviction they carry in the minds and
consciences of their people, and no clear scriptural sanction for the
condemnation of birth control has been given, nor does the report of the
Lambeth Conference vouchsafe any reasons why it is physically and
morally harmful.
A distinguished prelate of our Church has characterised the views herein
set forth as "very unguarded."[1] If by that expression he means
"careless," he cannot have done me the honour of reading my speech,
which, whatever its demerits, bears ample evidence of carefully
considered thought and expression. If by "unguarded" he means
"outspoken," I will plead justification. For is it not time that a
question which deeply concerns not only the thought, but the practice of
the thinking portions of communities should be fully considered and its
strength and its weakness disclosed by full discussion? The world looks
to its leaders for reasoned guidance, not for assertion which may be but
the husk of a thought that has gone. What is wanted is reasoned
consideration, not unreasoned condemnation. For churchmen and statesmen
alike, opportunism helps in situations which are small, but never in
those which are large; there clarity of principle alone stands forth as
a beacon to light the path.
[Footnote 1: Diocesan Conference at York.]
The fear that discussion of this vital problem will endanger morality
surely loses sight of the fact of knowledge being so fundamental to our
well-being, that incidental dangers encountered along its path must not
deter us from its continued pursuit.
Moreover, it will be noticed that I have discriminated between the
principle of birth control and the methods of its application, the
latter being preferably determined by the advice of the family doctor
rather than by the perusal of books in general circulation.
The attitude of mind of the Church towards the problems of sexual
relationships is part of a larger question, viz., the ever-widening gap
between the formal teaching of the Church and the actual belief of the
present generation, including many who by baptism and early training
belong to her fold.
This gap between authority and actuality of belief imposes a strain on
intellectual integrity and weakens the foundations of a real allegiance.
For those of us who are of mature years the gap is bridged by the tender
associations of our childhood and the memory of parents, for whom no
such gap existed, and whose faith and character have left indelible
impressions on our lives. But for the youth of to-day no such bridge
exists. The War has caused a hiatus and thought has broken with
tradition. Thus, youth is no longer willing to accept forms and formulae
only on account of their age. So it has set out on a voyage of inquiry,
and finding some things which are doubtful and others which are
insufficient, is searching for forms of expression more in harmony with
the realities of life and knowledge. Although becoming estranged in
thought from the Church, it is possessed of deep religious feeling and,
firm on the rock foundation of faith, is trying to build a
superstructure more in accord with the progress of revelation, not only
in religion, but in science, and the needs of the world in which it
moves and has its being.
Far be it, that I should write thee sin or blame,
Or think thee unbefitting holiest place,
Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets,
Whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronounced,
Present, or past, as saints and patriarchs used.
Here Love his golden shafts employs, here lights
His constant lamp, and waves his purple wings,
Reigns here and revels; not in the bought smile
Of harlots, loveless, joyless, unendeared,
Casual fruition; nor in court-amours,
Mixed dance, or wanton mask, or midnight ball,
Or serenate, which the starved lover sings
To his proud fair, best quitted with disdain.
These, lulled by nightingales, embracing slept,
And on their naked limbs the flowery roof
Showered roses, which the morn repaired.
_Paradise Lost,_
Book IV.