Creating a Christian Lifestyle

by sex-ed writer, Carl Koch, FSC

Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Programs

Introduction

Creating a Christian Lifestyle, by Carl Koch, FSC, concludes the series of books and programs of sex-education that I have examined at the Religious Education Office. This is a high school senior textbook, designed, according to it’s author, to “examine key developmental issues of young adulthood.” This text is not a graded sex-ed series. It does not invade the latency period. Group discussions are not a necessary component of the text; however, if all subjects treated by Koch are discussed openly, it would be invasive.

The text alone is found in the Religious Education Office. There is an accompanying manual which I will not review, but which, coupled with the text, makes this book dangerous in the hands of youth.

Most importantly this text is not a theological text. It should not be the subject of a religious course in high school. Yet, its biggest problem is that it markets itself as exactly that — a religious education class for high school seniors.

The parts of Koch’s book concerning human sexuality are most seriously defective because Koch writes from a fundamental misunderstanding of human sexuality, inclusive of gender and genital perspectives. In truth, as we shall see, Koch’s faulty sexual premises are a result of his even more serious misunderstanding of the nature of God Himself and the Church He established.

Although Koch’s book contains some good and interesting insights as well as practical pastoral guidance, this book cannot be recommended because he consistently injects his own Christian perspective into topics intrinsically involved with religion — namely — dating, marriage, sexuality, religious life, and ordained ministry.

Fundamentally, Koch’s own religious perspective is that of raising psychology to the level of religion. Speaking more practically, God becomes “demoted” to a genderless, God-like human. Perhaps if Koch could have written a psychology text, he might have succeeded, at least in part. In writing theology, he has failed seriously and has done possibly irreparable harm to the faith and to the children.

Even when we examine the skeletal structure of his book, we find that Koch’s Creating a Christian Lifestyle stands in direct contradiction to Msgr. Caffara’s instruction that proper placement of “sound doctrinal catechesis” in “authentic sexual morality” is within the context of instruction in all the virtues by observing and respecting the classic teaching tradition. Koch, in breaking with that tradition, places his commentary on human sexuality in the context of “lifestyles,” inclusive of the chapter headings: Identity and Autonomy, Love, Communication, Sexuality, Learning, Work, Money, Leisure, Single Life, Dating and Courting, Marrying, Growth in Marriage, Religious Life, and Ordained Ministry.

For the purposes of this letter, it is my intention to confine my comments on Koch to those areas most related to sex education. Enough is revealed in those chapters to suggest that a detailed critique of the whole 353-page text is in order because beyond the issues of sexuality, Koch’s “pop-psychology” approach to the Christian life poses problems. This analysis is especially necessary because overall Koch writes a very appealing book, and both parents and youth can easily miss some of the heretical parts because they are hidden in truthful parts.

Koch’s Creating a Christian Lifestyle can be very misleading to parents, especially parents who are knowledgeable of and weary of the more typical form of sex-ed programs. This is precisely because it doesn’t follow the typically familiar patterns of the graded series. Explicit pictures and graphic terminology are not present. The concept of sharing is qualified. The values clarification is much more subtle and in some significant areas not even present. It is refreshing to find that the whole book doesn’t deal with sex, and love is discussed with a certain tenderness. Beyond that, the text considers interesting topics, and again, to a growing teen, it has valuable insights in these areas. Every child should learn something about money management and the proper balance of work and leisure. And, as mentioned above, Koch writes with style.

Similar words/distinct definitions

Another interesting characteristic of Creating a Christian Lifestyle, which throws parents off-guard, is that Koch uses many of the concepts and words of the sex-ed/family life educators, only he differs from them in that he applies them appropriately, much of the time.

For instance, lifestyle is a word I associate with different forms of social, economic/family living arrangements — often used to emphasize materialism or sexual aberration. Koch uses the term to identify specific responses to a Christian vocation or calling from God.

When discussing power, Koch identifies the good use of power — God’s graced activity in a person — to affect change for the good and nurturing of personal relationships. (Usually in sex-ed texts, power means empowerment, to overthrow existing legitimate authority.)

When Koch addresses values and decision making, instead of totally embracing the values clarification philosophy, as other sex educators do, he states an objective standard of Judeo-Christian morality. Koch asserts — correctly so — that young people do go through a process of internalizing values. In that section, Koch does not have morality itself dependent on the decision-making process. When discussing decision making, Koch depicts the several steps of the process, but with appropriate subject matter such as selecting a major, or a career, or a suitable spouse.

When a sex-ed weary parent such as myself sees these more properly used terms, she sighs a sigh of relief. A mother thinks, “Maybe this book is harmless — just a little friendly advice and career guidance.”

However, the proper word usage stated above doesn’t continue throughout the book. Koch is not consistent even in objective morality based on natural law. His sexuality sections have clear examples of values clarification and all too frequently other buzz works of the modernists reveal themselves in the pages of Creating a Christian Lifestyle.

Taken as a whole, Koch refers to “spouses” too often as “partners,” and “persons” called to Holy Orders — instead of men. He speaks of long-term commitments, when he should say marriage. He’s careful and generic. His language is “politically correct.” His writing, although filled with imaginative stories and poetry, leave important questions and distinctions unanswered and unclear, respectively.

If a mother or father just read one definition on a given page, or read one anecdotal story, she or he could miss the total flavor that comes from a consecutive page reading.

Intimacy

Let us examine how Koch discusses intimacy. A weary sex-ed parent is delighted to see that Koch doesn’t advocate, forthrightly, that “sharing” all one’s thoughts and feelings “is the ultimate value.” In fact, Koch writes:

The wonder of self-disclosure is that it leads to more self-disclosure — most of the time. However, we cannot and should not open up to everyone. Some people will use our self-revelations against us. We have to carefully choose those with whom to share our inmost selves. But to share our feelings and deepest experiences with no one condemns us to a lonely life, a life in which we never feel solidarity with other people. The trust necessary for love or friendship is built on mutual self-disclosure.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 103

… Deep intimacy is experienced with only a few friends in life. In addition to being loyal and supportive and sharing a similar view of the world, our self-disclosure is deeper with our dearest friends, and we are far more vulnerable. Other friends may know a lot about us, but our closest friends know almost as much about us as we know about ourselves — the good and the not so good, the interesting and the boring. A friend lets us pull off our mask and be ourselves
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 75

The problem with this excellent instruction on sharing and intimacy (with the exception of the mask bit) is that in earlier pages Koch has provided the student with a detailed discussion of intimacy whereby he tells students that intimate relationships occur as a result of all kinds of everyday occurrences. He identifies “work intimacy,” “emotional intimacy,” intellectual intimacy,” “spiritual intimacy,” aesthetic intimacy,” “recreational intimacy,” and “creative intimacy.” He then goes on to say, “Intimate relationships can be nurtured into loving ones if we use some initiative and a little imagination”
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 70

What Koch should have said was that love can begin to blossom in all occasions of our everyday life. However, he did not. He used the word intimacy. By separating the term intimacy from love, Koch destroys the meaning of the term. Intimacy, the closest, very rare, interpersonal trust and sharing is only present when two people love each other. Most people have only a very few intimate relationships — the family, a few “soul” brothers or sisters, a spouse, and God.

In taking away the sacred loving aspect of intimacy, Koch removes its meaning for youth. In particular, the problem most children encounter today is that they share themselves completely before they have committed themselves to loving. Especially this is so in the dating relationship. Church documents on marriage constantly speak of marital intimacy and its particular form for spouses which is called conjugal love. This love is exclusive only to spouses and to no other. Koch’s teaching has blurred the meaning of intimacy, and therefore, his students would have difficulty understanding Church documents relating to conjugal love.

Love

Koch has some very beautiful things to say about love, and any parent would be grateful that a high school text reinforces the lessons we try to teach at home. Koch is careful to teach students the difference between romantic infatuation and true love. He further discusses the concept of friendship as the basis of all kinds of love. He distinguishes self-love, parental love, nutritive love, theological love, friendship, and erotic love. (Koch’s erotic love definition is flawed.) Overall, Koch says “… love means to seek and then foster the good of another in the context of their concrete situations” For Koch, love is caring.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 70

Koch is poignant when he chooses for students two stories about brave, irrevocable caring. One story concerns an adult daughter’s coordination of her family’s confrontation with their parents about their alcoholism. Another touching love story concerns one homeless friend’s loving care of another homeless friend. Koch truly has taught youth that love is something more than pleasure and passion.

In the same chapter however, Koch writes this definition of erotic love:

Erotic love is the desire two people have for union of their bodies and souls, hearts and minds. This is the love described in many passages from the Song of Songs. Erotic love, like all types of love, fosters the good of each person. The specific element that distinguishes erotic love from other types is the yearning for sexual expression of that love. In erotic love, lovers place their own relationship in the center of their lives.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 75

My comment on this definition is first of all, the term itself is misleading. Sexual expression, which Koch calls “its specific element,” can only take on legitimacy when defined as conjugal love. The definition of conjugal love is that of the desire for total union of husband and wife in sacramental marriage — inclusive of the classic three fruits of marriage — children, irrevocability, and exclusivity. Koch’s definition focuses on a false naturalism and could justify a homosexual union. Koch places “their own relationship” in the center of their lives. Conjugal love places God and the marriage covenant at the center of their lives.

In fact, Creating a Christian Lifestyle does not teach that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder. For a book that proposes to teach sexual morality, this is a glaring omission. Likewise, Koch does not teach youth about the immorality of masturbation. Abortion is mentioned only in passing, and its evilness is obscured.

Koch does discuss birth control with some kind words about children being “honored guests” and “blessings.” He also states that the Church teaches that artificial contraception is immoral. However, his total presentation on birth control is very harmful because Koch categorizes natural family planning as only one more method to prevent pregnancy. He states, “…a couple can use the method either to prevent or achieve pregnancy…respect for the natural rhythms of the women’s body make this method an acceptable way to prevent pregnancy…to prevent pregnancy abstinence from sexual intercourse is required…” (emphasis added) (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 302). Preventing pregnancy is a Planned Parenthood term and it means contraception. Creating a Christian Lifestyle’s discussion of birth control really amounts to buying-in to an anti-child mentality, and also contradicts the Church’s teaching in that it gives to the parents a false autonomy or freedom which is not theirs as explained so well in Humanae Vitae. This is another case where Koch first says one thing (i.e., children are a blessing), and then says the opposite (i.e., children are a threat).

In the chapter dealing with love, Koch makes a series of questionable comments. He asked if the student loves himself as much as God loves him. What does he mean by that? Can the student honestly think he can love as much as God loves, or is God a human god? Koch talks about a healthy respect of the earth and refers to it as loving the earth. Then he says “Loving the earth means that we love it as ourselves” (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 79). In saying this, Koch attributes human love to an inanimate object. In the same chapter, Koch comments that “If we love our parents, friends, and nature, we are loving God, who is the source of all these gifts” (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 80). This comment can only be true of course if we recognize and give praise and thanksgiving to God for being God. Loving people is distinct from loving God, and that distinction should have been made.

Sin

The overall focus of Koch’s Creating a Christian Lifestyle is the positive power of love. Koch’s message is that as a person matures and makes decisions about his personal vocation, he is presented by God with opportunities to love generously and with hope. To the extent that Koch is faithful in concrete situations and definitions to that goal, Koch is to be commended.

The problem is that any serious concern about loving, about living a Christian lifestyle, must come to grips with the reality of the human condition — that we often are unloving. Out of 353 pages, Koch discusses sin twice, a total of three pages. He defines sin as the opposite of love, “…a choice not to love” (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 81). His few paragraphs do not make clear distinctions between mortal and venial sins. He only names a handful of sins, “…physical abuse to another person, stealing, cheating, slander…” (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 81). He never alludes to the ten commandments, or considering his readers and his chapter headings, he never discusses sins of impurity. Koch talks a lot about so called “social sins,” especially in terms of the environment and the poor. (His book constitutes a leftist political agenda — complete with anti-nuclear bias.) However, he has not defined clearly that a social problem is really the result of the personal sins of many individual people. His last paragraph about sin reads:

1. Formulating a value system is one of the developmental tasks of this period of your life. A value system is formed not in one conscious choice but in thousands of daily choices that together make up a person’s response to life
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 75

This statement reveals Koch’s prejudice toward the raw autonomy of values clarification, as well as his essential denial of mortal sin in favor of a balance of the scales. This is heresy.

I would think an essential characteristic of a Christian lifestyle would be instruction on hell and purgatory. Are we not called to enter into the redemptive mystery and make reparation for sin? There’s nothing about fasting, penance, Eucharistic devotion, or sacramental confession in Koch’s description of the Christian lifestyle. Koch’s “unloving” could well exist only in the autonomous dominion of his mind, and never become rooted in the concrete reality of our everyday lives.

Perhaps the closest Koch comes to sexual morality is when he describes rape, lust, and pornography.

Rape
The most extreme example of disordered sexuality is rape. This act is condemned by society not because it is sexual but because it is essentially violent, brutal, and dehumanizing. Rape robs the victim of her or his rights and dignity as a human being. The rapist is also a victim — a victim of uncontrolled, violent emotions.

Lust
Lust is the desire to use another person as an object for one’s own sexual pleasure. Treating another person as an object is always disordered. Lust is sexuality gone sour; it may sound like love, but it is not. Frequently a person preoccupied with lust focuses so exclusively on self-gratification that he or she cannot direct energies into the development of friendships, creative projects, service to others and so on.

Pornography
Pornography reduces sexuality to a depersonalized, second-hand experience of genital sex. It tries to substitute mental pictures, photographs, or movies for human love. It is a form of deception, ultimately degrading and misleading. Pornography cannot deliver what it promises. It may seem nonthreatening to readers or viewers because it demands nothing in terms of a human relationship, but it does not prepare them to relate to real persons.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 126

Notice though, although it is clear that Koch does not like these things, he does not clearly label them as mortally sinful. Again, Koch is more concerned about the human psyche than the human soul.

With regard to abortion, although Koch calls it disordered, his analysis of pregnancy as a problem plays into the hands of Planned Parenthood. He takes no notice of the enormous difference between an abortion (an unspeakable crime), and a pregnant unmarried teen who struggles with the grace of God to give birth to a child, with an immortal soul, whom God lovingly and from all eternity created. There is nothing Christian about this paragraph, which is quoted in full:

Teen Pregnancies
The drastic increase in pregnancies among unmarried teenagers, and the alarming increase in abortions to “handle” them, is evidence of disordered sexuality. Whether a baby is aborted or comes to term and is born, the implications of such a pregnancy for the persons involved and for society as a whole are extremely serious. Too often the teenage mother and father are too young and immature to assume the enormous task of bringing up a child.

These pregnancies are not the result of responsible, loving choices about sexuality. Instead, the unexpected pregnancies often result from ill-considered, shortsighted decisions and sometimes even from coercion or selfish manipulation.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 126

Sexuality chapters flawed
As alluded to before, Koch’s sexuality chapters are based on a faulty understanding of human sexuality. He uses the concept of people being “sexual creatures” to excess. Although he tries to mean, mostly that our gender influences the way we relate, a total reading of chapter five gives too much attention to the word sex and how all our relationships are sexual. He really can’t distinguish genital sexuality from gender. (It’s the Planned Parenthood approach.) Koch writes:

We were created as sexual creatures—male and female. Sexuality is integral to who we are. Yet, despite the tradition that “God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good” (Genesis 1:31), sexuality has been a source of apprehension for human beings throughout the centuries.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 117

Furthermore, Koch misses von Hildebrand’s understanding that sex carries within the mystery of impurity as well as the mystery of redemption. He continues:

Valuing Ourselves as Sexual Persons

As we discussed earlier, sexuality is much more than sexual intercourse; it is the force that drives us to find fulfillment with others. A healthy expression of that sexuality depends on many factors. One factor is that we value ourselves as sexual persons. We will consider two aspects of that valuing:

• having a positive body image
• appreciating our maleness or femaleness…
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 127

Here we see the familiar trend to reduce sexual intercourse in marriage to a level of animal reproduction as opposed to the von Hildebrand or Hunthausen definitions that recognize the full holiness of the physical act of sexual intercourse between spouses. Also, Koch tends to “over do” the positive body self-image as well as “put down” stereotyping which can many times be proper and truthful. In several places, his instruction is solely naturalistic — that same naturalism condemned by the teachings of the Pope’s:

At some point in life, we must look at ourselves in the mirror and say something like, “I’m five-four, a short guy, but I am lovable and I can love others,” or “I’m six-three, tall for a woman, but I am lovable and I can love others.” In Christian terms, we need to love ourselves in order to love others.

List the attributes of the perfect male body and of the perfect female body as they are depicted in magazines and on television. Then write your answer to this question:

How has my perception of the perfect body for my sex influenced my acceptance of my own body?

List any activities that you regularly engage in or just enjoy that are considered stereotypically more proper for the other sex. Write your reflections on how you feel about doing these activities.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, pp. 128 & 129

Greek Myth vs. Revelation

With regard to sexuality, Koch is more influenced by Greek myth than Christian tradition. Rather than approaching sexuality from its origin and image in the Trinitarian God, he chooses as a base an androgynous image in Greek myth, of Zeus’ original creation of man as one being, both male and female. According to this myth, Zeus then punishes man by splitting “him” into male and female. Koch appears to give credence to this myth, inclusive of splitting (rather than progression), and even credence to Zeus himself:

We might say that ever since Zeus split human beings into female and male, women and men, have sought to reunite themselves in order to be whole once again. This would explain the powerful drive that compels women and men to bond.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 117

(The young reader might well ask of Koch: “Who’s this Zeus, who splits humans? From whence his power?)

Koch then tailors and rewrites the Genesis story to fit the Greek myth, thereby reducing human sexuality as a drive to wholeness with each male and each female possessing both male and female characteristics. Androgynous humans, of course, eventually leads to an “androgynous God.” By this process, the truth of the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as man’s relationship to Him, is undermined.

A Study of Koch’s Writing is in order:

The Greek myth strikes a familiar chord when we consider the creation story in the Jewish Scriptures. In that account, God separates the first human being into a man and a woman.

The, Yahweh God made the man [“earth creature”] fall into a deep sleep. And, while he was asleep, he took one of his ribs and closed the flesh up again forthwith. Yahweh God fashioned the rib he had taken from the man [“earth creature”] into a woman, and brought her to the man. And the man said:

This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh!
She is to be called Woman,
because she was taken from Man.

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his
wife, and they become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:21 24)

A bit of explanation about terminology will help in our understanding of this passage. In the ancient Hebrew language, the word translated into English as “man” actually means “earth creature,” which is neither male nor female. The Hebrew terms for the human male and the human female are not introduced in the creation account until after the rib episode. What the writers of the account intended to convey was that both man and woman were created from the same earth creature.

In both the Greek and Jewish stories about the creation of man and woman, sexuality can be seen as a force that draws two people together into oneness. However, in the Jewish Scriptures, the original split of the human being into man and woman was not done as punishment by God; rather, it was done so that the earth creature would not have to be alone. From this account, we can learn that men and women spring from one source — God’s love and life.

Another important aspect common to the Greek and the Jewish creation stories is the implication that both femaleness and maleness were originally inside of each human being. Today, psychologists who take a Jungian perspective — that is, follow the theory of noted psychologist Carl G. Jung — assert that within each female lies a masculine dimension and within each male lies a feminine dimension. To become whole, a person must bring this dimension to awareness and allow it to be integrated into her or his personality. Sexuality not only drives us to be unified with another person but also propels us to be whole persons, using the full range of our intellectual and emotional capacities. This is what God created us for.

Sexuality: Seeking Fulfillment Outside of Ourselves

Given the insights into the meaning of sexuality provided by the Greek and the Jewish stories, we can see the wisdom of a definition of sexuality given by two authorities on sexuality, Mary Perkins Ryan and John Julian Ryan:

Sexuality…is the force in human nature meant to provide psychophysical impetus [motivation] and urgency to the drive of our whole being to find fulfillment…with others; it urges us, physically and psycho-physically, to seek completion in an “opposite” to ourselves. Our sexuality at once makes it evident that we are not self-sufficient and impels us to seek fulfillment outside ourselves.
(Love and Sexuality, page 43)
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, pp. 118 & 119

Careful scrutiny must be given to this irretrievably flawed text. In it, God is never credited with making a fully formed human male, and from that fully male human being, God does not create a fully formed female human being.

Instead, Koch posits that God (presumably) made from nothing (presumably) an earth creature (neither male nor female). No explanation is rendered as to how this earth creature images God; nor is information given about the earth creature’s presence or non-presence of an immortal soul — or this creature’s purpose.

Next Koch postures man and woman’s origin, not from God in order of male/female progression, but rather from this androgynous earth creature “split” in two. In Koch’s schemata, Adam and Eve are not truly distinct in role and authority. Instead they are each half of a sexless, or pan-sexual creature, and they come into existence at the same time. Each possessing pan-sexuality, their only real distinction is that their history involved an original unity which has been separated. The earth creature of Koch reflects the philosophy common to New Age and Jung, in that this earth creature integrates all separateness — one world, one idea, one “being” — from which we originate and to which we return.

Also, of course, distinct roles of male, as authority and life giving principle, and female, as receiver and nurturer of life in submission to and protection in authority, are swept away by Koch’s interpretation.

Adam, never having been made, was therefore never the first man. Adam never received authority from his Father, nor, could he be priest, prophet, or king. Eve became the splitter and the taker, rather than a receiver of feminine life ordered to fruitfulness.

Koch’s “myth” undermines the traditional faith of Christianity and Judaism, and sacramental marriage, which is called to be the image of the loving Triune God. Marriage becomes only fanciful ideas if one adopts Koch’s myth.

Koch’s interpretation of sexuality’s meaning of unity — Koch’s “oneness” — is erroneous as well. Koch views this in terms of individual self-fulfillment reaching completion in a blending of male and female within the person, and within other male/female relationships, especially marriage.

In the Christian tradition, God’s creation of sexuality’s order to union is one of self-emptying, of total surrender and oblation, of procreation of children who are called by God to everlasting intimacy. Koch’s self-fulfillment and Christian self-emptying are radically different terms. Distinct from Koch, self-fulfillment, in revelation terms, means that all men — male, female, married, and single, by self-emptying (imaging God) do indeed live out the reason for human existence as God intends.

Notice too, that Koch endorses the Ryan definition of human sexuality. This definition is a reductionist’s abstraction that dovetails to Koch’s concept of self-fulfillment. Thus, Ryan’s definition leads away from a traditional understanding of marriage and family. Moreover, the Ryan definition reflects the Koch concept — common to all sex educators, that all our human relationships are fundamentally sexual. This concept portrays the celibate life as “something less,” and the cloistered religious life as essentially incomplete. This also undermines the Catholic faith.

Stereotyping

Koch develops progressively his concern about sexual stereotyping to the point where he denies distinct male/female roles in life. He critiques the list below as “harmful” erroneous stereotyping:

Appreciating Our Maleness or Femaleness

• Women are sensitive but unreasonable.
• Men are insensitive but logical.
• Women should take primary responsibility for child rearing.
• Men should be breadwinners.
• Women should stick to the liberal arts.
• Men should be engineers, doctors, or accountants.

Until the last two decades, these statements stood in public opinion as mostly unquestioned truths about what it means to be male or female. Although fewer people would make these comments today than in earlier years, many people still act out of these prejudices. Valuing ourselves as sexual persons by appreciating our maleness or femaleness does not mean that we lock into such stereotyped notions of masculinity and femininity. That would be a distortion of sexuality. Yet such distortions are still common in our society.
(Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 129)

The Greek and Jewish stories about the creation of man and woman hint at the idea that whole human beings bring together what are traditionally considered masculine and feminine traits. After all (according to these myths), in the original human condition, male and female were united in one human being. The longing that both men and women have to express their feminine and masculine sides—the longing to be whole—comes through in this poem by Nancy R. Smith entitled “For Every Woman” …
(Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, pp. 131 & 132)

Jesus: The Complete Person

The best model that we have of someone who transcended sexual stereotypes and used the full range of his intellect and emotions in loving others is Jesus. He was sensitive when that was required and assertive when that was the proper response to a situation.

In short, Jesus could be feminine or masculine, as the situation demands; he was free of the stereotypes that confine most people. As a perfectly whole person, Jesus gives us a model of what it means to live a full life as a male or a female. He was chaste and never married, but Jesus expressed his sexuality by directing its energy and power into his ministry.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, pp. 132 & 133

Koch completely denies the masculinity of the Son of God in that he claims that “Jesus transcends sexual stereotypes, and could be masculine or feminine as the situation demands.” The truth is a man cannot transcend his sexuality; neither can a woman. It is a betrayal of reality for a man to act “like a women” or for a woman to behave “like a man.”

Koch shows a more balanced approach in other sections of this chapter where he describes the absurdities of women being labeled “soft, dizzy, and helpless,” and men considered “striving for control, competitive power, and domination” (Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 130). Koch believes that most of the time we should serve one another as much as possible by doing whatever is needed, and not be overly concerned that the action is considered feminine or masculine. That concept is okay.

Koch’s “sexuality” mistake is his belief in the androgynous myth. Adam was never the “earth creature” Koch (and Zeus) dreamed him to be. He was male and Eve was female. Jesus is the new Adam and Mary, the new Eve. In spousal relationship — through the family — God works out his plan of salvation.

Unclear morality

A repeated criticism of Koch is that in discussing the morality of human sexuality he sometimes isn’t clear or consistent. After presenting reasonable arguments for sexual intercourse being reserved for only the married he writes:

If sexual intercourse is to become the human experience and act of love it should be, it needs freedom from worry, freedom to take time, freedom not to succeed perfectly and [freedom] to try again, in the context of a lovingly shared life. …These freedoms cannot ordinarily exist outside of marriage.
Love and Sexuality, page 77

We have already seen that the permanent commitment of marriage provides the best atmosphere for the most obvious expression of sexuality, sexual intercourse. Intercourse is ordered within marriage. Perhaps the explanation above about why intercourse belongs in marriage made sense to you—or perhaps it raised questions for you instead.
Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 125

Using words like “best atmosphere” and “these freedoms cannot ordinarily exist,” presents intercourse in marriage as an ideal, not a command. The questioning technique really becomes values clarification here, and non-marital unions enter the realm of possibility. In previous paragraphs, Koch speaks on long-range commitment and self-fulfillment of persons. These generic terms are quite distinct from an irrevocable, exclusive, fruitful marriage — mutual self-surrender of husband and wife.

While Koch always respects questioning, as he should, he only sometimes places the questioning in its proper relationship to objective truth.

When naming reasons young people might wish to justify fornication, Koch says that these reasons don’t consider long term consequences. Koch overlooks the fact that the reasons, themselves, are invalid. Also, like other sex-ed programs, sex gets inextricably associated with problems — disease and death. Although suffering does come about due to the immoral use of the sex act, Koch, like the others, neglects to underscore that spiritual death — mortal sin- is the biggest problem and also passes over the redemptive, “maturing value of suffering.”

It is also distressing to see that Koch, after making clear distinctions as to the difference between divorce and annulment asks:

Write your responses to the following questions:

• Do you think that divorces should be easily granted?

• Do you think that annulments should be easily granted?
(Koch, Creating a Christian Lifestyle, 1988, p. 281)

This is yet another sample of values clarification. It is not the role of the student to assume the “binding, loosening” role of the Church, nor to second guess Church teachings concerning the evil of divorce.

In conclusion, Carl Koch’s Creating a Christian Lifestyle, is a deceptive educational text currently at the Religious Education Office. His text, as it relates to sexual morality, is totally deficient. Moreover, when he does state the Church’s teaching correctly, I have found that he contradicts what he says in other places. One simply cannot trust that he means what he says when he does state something correctly.

He writes from the perspective of a modernist specializing in psychology. He is sometimes eloquent, especially in the psychological field. Parents could easily be taken-in by his helpful guidance to teens on any number of topics — such as communication skills — inclusive of body language, underlying messages, and feedback. Parents need to look at Koch carefully, in order to discover his underlying messages of contradiction on doctrines of Faith and Morals, which are tucked into his stories, poems, and personal commitment.