Sexuality, as one of the more powerful human instincts, has often been construed as a dangerous and potentially disruptive force in human societies. Indeed, in those dominated by Judeo-Christian culture, sexuality has been viewed as fundamentally subversive of the moral order, its existence only to be tolerated under the constraint of many taboos, prohibitions, and proscriptions. Sex has characteristically been viewed as a powerful force, more likely than almost any other to lead men away from God, and Christianity has therefore tended to seek the close regulation and even at times the suppression of sexuality rather than its celebration. Alone among the human instincts it has been a need which Christian charity has felt no incentive to meet as part of its witness. While the alleviation of pain, cold, hunger, and thirst have often found a significant place as Christian duties to be fulfilled as part of the very act of evangelism, the alleviation of sexual desire--no matter how pressing or intense--has not. Meeting that need, except within the trammelled confines of the marriage bed and even then preferably only for the procreation of the species, has been viewed as polluting and defiling. Charity in respect of sexual needs not only has not been seen as a means of saving souls from perdition, but as likely rather there to consign both donor as well as recipient. So strongly has this view held that while contraventions of traditional sexual morality have figured as part of the innovatory doctrine and practice of various sects and heresies, only in modem times has a group born in the Christian tradition come to revise its theology of sexuality to the point where sexuality is seen not as a route to damnation, but a means of salvation. The group in question is known as the Children of God, and ] propose a discussion of this extraordinary innovation in evangelism through a consideration of the nature of the Children of God and its earlier strategies of witness, and to show that whatever ultimate theological debate may conclude, a perfectly coherent, albeit undoubtedly not very widely acceptable case can be made for their current practice.