The appearance of an article about American church life on the front page of the Washington Post is a rare occurrence. But the approval by the Presbyterian Church (United States) of a church law requiring celibacy of its non-married clergy gained front-page attention in the Post not just once but twice this year.

Treatment of the issue in both articles by religion writer Laurie Goodstein carried the tone of surprise and chagrin that a mainline church should be so intolerant. The opposition of only 40 congregations (out of over 11,000 within the 2.7 million member denomination) was headlined, with the suggestion later in the story that a church split was a real possibility. According to the subheadline in the May 16 story, the church law is “aimed at gays.”

The “Fidelity and Chastity Amendment” hardly represents the advent of a new teaching, much less an inquisition within mainline Protestantism. And it is not “aimed at gays.” The church law prohibits nonmarital sexual activity by all clergy. Although not mentioned in either piece by Goodstein, almost every major Christian denomination in the country has nearly the same policy, either specifically codified or in practice, as that which the Presbyterians have now formally ratified.

Among large, mainline churches, only the 1.5 million-member United Church of Christ officially ordains practicing homosexuals and condones other sexual behavior outside of marriage. Numerous Episcopal bishops, on their own authority, have ordained noncelibate homosexuals, despite their denomination’s traditional teaching. Otherwise, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Lutherans, and countless evangelical denominations expect their clergy to abide by the biblical standard that sex is confined to marriage. Catholics, of course, prohibit marriage for their clergy, who must remain celibate for life.

But to read the Post‘s coverage of the Presbyterian action, you would think that the church was trying to resurrect chattel slavery or concubinage. The March 20 Post story even implied that the church law represented a backlash by conservatives, who have supposedly fumed for 30 years over the ordination of women. No mention was made that an ordained woman chaired the committee that drafted the new church law.

Most hilariously, the May 16 story quoted the pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, who fretted that the new restriction will impede his church’s evangelism program, especially among young adults. The reader is left wondering what precisely this church wishes Washington’s young people to convert to, since the traditional Christian faith, and its standards of conduct, seem to be unacceptable.

To be fair to the Post, most coverage in the secular media has portrayed the Presbyterian chastity amendment as a bizarre aberration in American religious life. It is rarely acknowledged that this “new” church law merely reiterates an ancient Christian (and Jewish) teaching that began in the Scriptures and has been sustained by every major branch of Christianity for 2,000 years.

My own United Methodist Church adopted a similar church law in 1972. Although we are the third largest religious body in America (behind Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists), the Methodist requirement that clergy be monogamous in marriage and celibate in singleness has not been mentioned in any of the many news accounts I have read. This church law has been reaffirmed by every quadrennial meeting of our governing General Conference for the last 25 years.

Our denomination also declares that homosexual practices are “incompatible with Christian teaching” while affirming that persons who struggle with homosexual desire have “sacred worth” and are entitled to the church’s ministry. Last year, there was a tremendous lobbying effort to overthrow Methodism’s teaching on sexual conduct. Fifteen bishops openly opposed the church’s standard, and several homosexual groups vigorously protested at the General Conference in Denver.

Even First Lady Hillary Clinton (herself a lifelong Methodist laywoman) joined the fray (perhaps inadvertently) when she repeated the slogan of the pro-homosexuality lobby (“Throw Open the Doors!”) in her speech to the convention. However, only minutes after her departure, the delegates voted, by over a 60 percent margin, to reaffirm the traditional Christian position on sexuality.

A poll conducted by the United Methodist Church several years ago found that over 70 percent of its members supported the current church position on sexual morality and the standards for clergy. There was a similar poll in the Presbyterian Church (United States) finding even a larger majority favoring those standards. As has been the case on so many other issues, whether political or theological, the revisionist position on sexuality has been trumpeted by the church’s ecclesiastical elites, while the average local church member is baffled as to why there is even a debate.

For different reasons, these debates on sexuality within the churches also left the self-appointed spokesmen of America’s popular culture dumbfounded. They have been disengaged from church life for so many decades that they are astonished by any assertion of traditional religious belief For many of these secular elites, the only moral restriction on sexual behavior is “consent.”

But for believers in a transcendent moral authority and in fixed moral absolutes based upon divine revelation, mere “consent” does not pass muster. Contrary to many public misperceptions, most people of traditional faith are not trying to “impose” their morality upon society at large. But they do expect the salaried employees of their own religious institutions to uphold the teachings that are central to their faith.

Many editors and religion reporters may not be pleased by that development. But since over 160 million Americans belong to churches that uphold traditional Christian teachings regarding sexuality, the media at least have an obligation to understand their teachings and to report them accurately.