Editorial November 8, 1969 Issue

A New Morality?

William Milford Correll

Does the phrase "new morality" simply signify immorality, or does it involve a new concept of morality? Now that the intensity of opinion on the subject is waning, we may be able to take a sober look at this concept called the new morality and see if there is any substance to it. We must admit that people have used the term to cover and to justify whatever they wished to do and to abrogate what they called the old morality. Still, there are some serious religious thinkers who are convinced of the value of the new morality in our modern world.

It seems to me that the reason for this new attempt to define morality is the conflict between form and essence. The formal and legalistic view of morality is being challenged, and the essential and love-motivated view is being supported. Is this new? This very contrast is the crucial difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Under the Mosaic law the adulteress would have been stoned; but Jesus spoke to her compassionately and said, "Go, and sin no more."^{John 8:11;} The Mosaic law included the doctrine of an eye for an eye, while the Gospels teach us to love our enemies. The disciple John records that Christ Jesus was speaking of a new commandment when he stated simply, "That ye love one another."^13:34;

But how do you define this love? Is it simply an invitation to what is called free love? By no means. It does not refer to sensuous love. Nor is it a formal attitude that measures conduct solely according to legal requirements. It is an unselfish love, a spiritual affection, that enables one to give of himself. Jesus said, "I am among you as he that serveth,"^{Luke 22:27;} and he also said, "As I have loved you, that ye also love one another."²