29 August 2003,  Rev Lyndon Bowring,  Executive Chairman,

CARE,  53 Romney Street,  LONDON,   SW1P 3RF

 Dear Lyndon

Following our meeting on 15 November 2002, we undertook to let you know our objections, in writing, to CARE’s approach to sex education.  As you know, we are writing a book on the issue, Lessons in Depravity, which is to be published shortly.  A major aspect of the book is to demonstrate the link between the sexual revolution and sex education, and it also raises fundamental questions about the Christian response to State sex education.

 Following our meeting it was clear that there is a major division between our respective positions and beliefs.  Indeed, the division is so fundamental that it cannot be covered over.  Many of the reasons for our opposition to CARE’s approach to sex education are illustrated by reference to the video Make Love Last and the sex education resource for churches, Parents First.

 1.  CARE’s use of obscene language

As we mentioned in our meeting, the video Make Love Last, produced in 1994, uses coarse language with many smutty sexual innuendoes.  One character, Randy Factor, asks a group of young people whether they are ‘putting it around a bit, you know, dipping your wick’.  Randy promotes an exercise programme to make people ‘bonking’ fit.  He uses phrases like, ‘Your need to get bonking fit’; ‘pumping for humping’; ‘leg-over time’; ‘the more I score the better I score’ and ‘the sponsored bonk’.  A dictionary defines most of these phrases as ‘coarse slang’ for having sexual intercourse.  In a skit on the TV programme Blind Date, Randy has his game-show called Find a Mate.  The young male contestant explains to the first female that strip poker is his favourite game and asks her: ‘Will you go all the way when I let you play with me?’  He asks the second young woman: ‘Will you let me touch you up, or should I use a stripper?’  His question to the third woman is even more direct: ‘Will you have sex with me?’  The prize is a dirty weekend in Paris, staying at Bonking Motel. 

Parents First (1995) is a resource that is supposed to help parents tackle sex education confidently and appropriately with their children.  It is of such importance that CARE is encouraging all church leaders to consider incorporating Parents First into their church teaching programme.  Activity 6 aims to help Christian parents to be aware of the sexual language that their children confront; feel more comfortable dealing with sexual language; work out what sort of language they want their children to use. CARE claims that discussions around sexual language are very important.  Parents are required to fill in an activity sheet which requires them to compile and categorise a list of sexual words into polite, neutral, clinical and rude/offensive words for female genitalia, penis, sex, and oral sex.  The example of an offensive word provided by CARE for sex is ‘screwing’.[i] Parents First stresses that the group of Christian parents ‘will not have to show their completed activity sheet to anyone else or share their words with the group’.  However, if the ‘group is quite comfortable with sexual language, the words can be anonymously collated onto a flip chart and used to illustrate the discussion on appropriate sexual language’.  The discussion that follows focuses on how the rude words make them feel, ‘the importance of working out what type of language children should use’ and ‘the importance of parents and children being familiar with sexual language other than the “proper” word, to avoid innocent mistakes’.[ii]  Apparently CARE feels that it is important for Christians to have a vocabulary of lewd words for female genitalia, penis, sex, and oral sex.  But why do these words need to be collated anonymously?  Is it because the activity might arouse a sense of shame?  We believe that encouraging Christians to discuss rude, offensive, swear words and filthy language is introducing profanity into the body of Christ.  In our opinion offensive words have no place in the Church of God.     

 We believe that for a Christian organisation to use sexual innuendoes and to encourage groups of Christians to discuss lewd words is to demean the biblical principle of sexual purity.  The Bible teaches that sexual purity, which flows from the holiness that is central to the character of God, is central to Christian teaching on sex conduct.  The Bible teaches that we should avoid filthy, foul, indecent, lewd language.  As children of light the apostle Paul tells Christians, ‘Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God…’ (Ephesians 4:29-30).  ‘Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving’ (Ephesians 5:4).  In the letter to Colossians we read: ‘But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth’ (Colossians 3:8).  In the letter to Titus we read: ‘Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us’ (Titus 2:8). [quotes from ESV] 

 We understand that CARE’s reason for using this language is that teenagers understand it and ‘we must be where the people are’.  We believe that the command not to use filthy indecent language is absolute and there are no occasions in which foul, sexually smutty language is justifiable on the pretext of being better understood.  We believe that CARE is wrong to use this type of language.  It creates the impression in the minds of young people that lewd language is acceptable; it also associates the Church of Christ with foul language.  We believe this dishonours our Lord, who was without sin, and who set God’s standard of purity.  He told us to be holy, as our Father in Heaven is holy.      

 Another activity in Parents First is designed to help parents gain confidence in talking to their children about sex and sexuality.  Parents are divided into small groups and given a starter card with a topic for discussion.  One starter card, for example, contains the statement: ‘Your daughter of 12 asks you: “What’s oral sex?”’ 

 Responses parents are asked to think about include the following, with an invitation to select the one they favour:

Ask your father/mother (ie. the other parent)

Who told you about it?

Why do you want to know?

It’s a very personal sexual activity which some people enjoy; it can be done by a person, male or female, to their sexual partner.

It’s the name given to kissing/licking a man’s penis or a woman’s vagina.  Some people like it, others don’t.

It’s disgusting; who told you about it?_[iii]

 What is so disturbing about the two activities described above is that, in the name of sex education, Christian people are being persuaded of the need to update their vocabulary of lewd words and the importance of discussing oral sex.  Yet the Bible provides the strongest warning against those who promote or tolerate sexual immorality in the Church.  Christ warned the Church in Thyatira.  ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practise sexual immorality…’ (Revelation 2:20).

 2.  Unequally yoked together with Just 17

We are deeply concerned that CARE is associating the Church of Christ with the magazine Just 17.  The video Make Love Last uses the agony aunt of Just 17, Annabel G, as a source of sexual advice to teenagers.  And CARE used Just 17 after both the FPA and Brook had developed strong links with teenage magazines such as Just 17 and were using these magazines to educate young people about contraceptive methods._[iv]  For example, the Brook Helpline for teenagers, launched in February 1991 with funding from the Department of Health, teamed up with the magazine Just 17 to run four separate helplines in order to provide a service streamlined to the specific information needs of teenagers.  Advertised every week in Just 17 the helplines proved popular, taking some five thousand calls over a three-month period.  The greatest proportion of calls were about missed periods (34 per cent), followed by emergency contraception (25 per cent), general contraceptive advice (23 per cent) and abortion (18 per cent).[v]  Brook was delighted with the response, and in the following year teamed up with Just 17 and More to launch two new lines, namely, ‘Are you ready for sex?’ and ‘The condom line’.  According to Brook the new lines proved enormously popular.  ‘Separate lines under specific headings appear on the problem pages of each issue [of Just 17 and More] and attracted around 35 thousand calls during 1992-93.  A breakdown of the calls shows the greatest interest to be in information about emergency contraception, although the younger readers of Just 17 appear more concerned about missed periods… An increase in calls to Brook’s central office from young teenagers wanting to talk about starting a relationship suggests the helpline is a useful way of referring them to an appropriate service.’_[vi]

 Moreover in 1994, the year that Make Love Last was published, the sex education booklet, Your Pocket Guide to Sex, written by Nick Fisher, an agony aunt for Just 17, caused a political furore because of its lewd contents.  The booklet, aimed at 16 to 24-year-olds, which showed an angel astride a condom on the cover, was to have been published in 1994.  It contained information on the use of vibrators, oral sex and masturbation.  Lord Stallard believed the booklet promoted promiscuity and was insulting to women.  He quoted from the booklet: ‘The number of people you have sex with is much less important than how you have sex.  If it’s safer sex and you use a condom, you could screw hundreds of people and never come in contact with HIV.’  The Earl of Lauderdale called it ‘a glossy but degrading incitement to anti-family behaviour’._[vii]  In a letter Valerie Riches wrote, ‘Since it was established in 1968 the Health Education Authority has been surrounded by controversy over its approach to sexual matters.  The “smutty” sex handbook for youngsters is just another example of its explicit and amoral liberalism…   Government departments have previously responded to public concern about the authority’s activities with evasion and prevarication.  The authority itself, which exists on public money, has hidden under the cloak of respectability of being an agent of the Government.’_[viii]  The Government was clearly embarrassed by the booklet and the Minister of Health, Brian Mawhinney, said that he found it distasteful, inappropriate and smutty and advised that the 12 thousand copies be withdrawn and pulped.  The HEA responded that the booklet contained passages on celibacy and saying ‘no’ to sex._[ix]  The director of the FPA defended the booklet as one attempt to fill a gap, and a spokesman for Brook said the controversy showed that people did not understand the truth about sex education._[x] 

 The above examples show that the amoral position of Just 17 was public knowledge.  Undoubtedly many parents were deeply concerned about the immoral messages that were being given to teenage girls by Just 17.  But CARE, by using Just 17 as a source of sexual advice in Make Love Last, is suggesting that the messages of Just 17 are acceptable for teenagers.  

 The Bible teaches that the Church of God should not be associated with the works of evil.  ‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.  For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?  What agreement has the temple of God with idols?  For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty’ (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).  In Ephesians we are warned to have nothing to do with the sons of disobedience.  ‘Therefore do not associate with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.  Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.  Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them’ (Ephesians 5:7-11).      

 We believe that it is wrong for a Christian organisation to associate the Church of Christ with the magazine Just 17.  By doing so, CARE is not only endorsing the ideology of Just 17, but also suggesting to teenagers that the sexual advice that flows from Just 17 is acceptable.  It seems likely that teenagers who see Make Love Last will conclude that the sexual advice that comes from this magazine is consistent with Christian standards.  CARE does a disservice to those parents who seek to warn their children against the amoral messages promoted by Just 17 and other similar magazines.  Does CARE truly believe that its association with Just 17 is honouring to God? 

 3.  CARE’s moral relativism

In CARE’s video Make Love Last, Annabel G of Just 17 tells teenagers: ‘I think saying no if you don’t want sex is the most crucial word and I don’t think it is used often enough’ [our italics].  Angela Flux advises: ‘There’s no need to be apologetic, everybody has got the right to say I don’t want to have sex with you now, and I think young people need to have the confidence to say that, and I think young people need to feel good about saying it, because it can be a very positive choice for young people’ [our italics].  In other words, young people are being advised that their decision to have sex or not to have sex depends on what they want at that moment in time, and not on any objective standard of right and wrong.  While the ‘Christian’ version of sex education aims to delay the onset of sexual intercourse, it does not teach chastity.  Moreover, the message of Make Love Last is similar to that of the Health Education Authority: ‘It’s your right to say “no” if you don’t want to go all the way.  It doesn’t mean you don’t like or want your partner – just that you’re not ready.  So don’t be pushed into doing something you’d rather not.’_[xi]  The booklet of the Health Education Authority, Lovelife, put it this way: ‘Remember, it’s your body, your choice and your right to say no.  Only have sex because you want to.’_[xii]

 CARE’s pamphlet, Making a Decision, helps a woman make an ‘informed’ choice whether or not to have an abortion.  The pamphlet explains to a pregnant woman that ‘when you’re ready, you and your husband or partner will need to consider the options available: parenting, adoption or abortion… Although the decision ahead of you may be one of the most difficult you’ll ever have to make, it must be your decision and no-one else’s.  This leaflet is designed to help you through the decision making process… Make sure you have read all the factual information about each option before you make a final decision.  Having looked at all the facts and explored thoroughly how you feel about each option, you may be ready to make your decision.  It’s important that you feel able to live with the decision you have made.’_[xiii]  Making a Decision is promoting a ‘pro-choice’ amoral dogma.  First, the issue of abortion is demoralised; as there is no right or wrong, abortion and parenting are presented as moral equivalents.  CARE is encouraging a woman to believe that her decision to have an abortion is a morally neutral action—she is not warned of the moral consequences.  Second, as abortion and parenting are moral equivalents, a woman is invited to make an informed decision on the basis of factual information and how she feels.  Third, she is persuaded to do what she believes to be right in her own eyes.  A woman is told that it is her own decision; she decides for herself what is right. To offer young women the option of abortion without warning that abortion is against the moral law of God is leading them into the path of temptation.  To place before young women the choice of an abortion, and suggest that it is for them to make an ‘informed’ decision on the basis of the facts, guided by how they feel, is damnable advice. Those who do so should take heed of the biblical warning.  Jesus said, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!  It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin’ (Luke 17:1-2). 

 The advice offered by Make Love Last and Making a Decision is entirely consistent with the morality of desire.  In his Guide to Contemporary Culture, Gene Veith provides a useful summary of postmodernist thought.   He explains that for postmodernists morality, like religion, is a matter of desire.  ‘What I want and what I choose is not only true (for me) but right (for me).  That different people want and choose different things means that truth and morality are relative, but “I have a right” to my desires.  Conversely, “no one has the right” to criticise my desires and my choices.  Although postmodernists tend to reject traditional morality, they can still be very moralistic.  They will defend their “rights” to do what they want with puritanical zeal.  Furthermore, they seem to feel they have a right not to be criticized for what they are doing.  They want not only licence but also approval.  Thus tolerance becomes the cardinal virtue… postmodernist sins are “being judgmental”, “being narrow-minded”, “thinking that you have the only truth”, and “trying to enforce your values on anyone else”.  Those who question the postmodernist dogma that “there are no absolutes” are excluded from the canons of tolerance.  The only wrong idea is to believe in truth; the only sin is to believe in sin.  The morality of desire has wreaked havoc with sexuality.’_[xiv]

  Veith shows that in postmodern thinking meaning is not discovered in the objective world; rather, meaning is a purely human phenomenon.  Because there is no ready made meaning to life, individuals can create meaning for themselves.  ‘Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning is equally valid.  Religion becomes a purely private affair, which cannot be imposed on anyone else.  The content of one's meaning makes no difference, only the personal commitment… Moral values, like other kinds of meaning, are created by the self.  The best example of an existential ethic can be found in some of those who advocate abortion but call themselves “pro-choice”.  To them it makes no difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic choice to have or not to have a baby.  Whatever she chooses is right—for her.’_[xv]  The guidance provided by CARE is based on the morality of desire.  The guiding principle is what a young person wants, and there is no clear distinction between right and wrong in matters of sexual conduct.

 Parents First uses the technique of the values continuum to help ‘parents clarify what they actually believe and value about sex and sexuality’.  The purpose is to help ‘parents realise that within the Christian Church there may be a range of beliefs and values held about particular issues’._[xvi]  A specimen pair of value statements is placed at the opposite ends of the room with a clear space between them. For example, ‘homosexuality is part of God’s created order’ is placed at one end of the room and ‘homosexuality is against God’s created order’ at the other end.  Parents are then invited to read the statements and decide where they stand on the continuum between these two alternatives.  The purpose is to help Christians clarify what they believe.  After each pair of statements there must be some discussion.  The objective is ‘not necessarily to get to a definitive RIGHT answer, but to help parents realise they do hold certain beliefs that they will transmit to their youngsters and that all issues are not easily resolved’._[xvii]  The underlying aim of this technique is to demonstrate that there are no absolute, right answers to moral questions, that there is no absolute moral truth.  Parents, therefore, must clarify their position on a moral continuum—this is usually referred to as relative morality, and is diametrically opposed to the absolute moral truth taught in the Bible.  

 One of the most concerning aspects of CARE’s approach to sex education is its moral relativism—in CARE’s version of sex education there are no moral absolutes.  Parents First provides ground rules for Christian parents that ‘should include respect, non-judgementalism, openness, trust and confidentiality’.  Non-judgementalism is often another word for relativism.  CARE aims ‘to help parents clarify what they actually believe and value about sex and sexuality, and would wish to communicate to their children’.  So the aim is not to bring parents’ beliefs into line with biblical teaching, but rather to ‘clarify’ their beliefs.  Body of Knowledge, labelled by CARE as providing sex education within a Christian moral framework, advises teachers to respond to moral questions by telling children that ‘people have different opinions and have to decide what is right for themselves’._[xviii]  This response is consistent with the ideology of secular sex education—CARE is apparently content to teach children that they are free to do whatever they feel to be right in their own eyes. 

 CARE’s sex education philosophy can be gleaned from its submission to the Government’s social exclusion unit in response to a questionnaire on the issue of teenage parenthood.  CARE draws attention to a moral ambivalence about the sex education message that is being communicated to young people.  CARE is concerned that ‘sex education has not been good at getting the message across about the appropriate context for sexual relationships or pregnancy.  Concentrating on preventing conception is treating a symptom rather than a cause – it does not address the issue of why young people are having early and unprotected sex.  Indeed, there is moral ambivalence about what we want to say to young people – we are not communicating clear messages.  The message of this consultation is “teenagers should not get pregnant”.  Yet, there appears to be few who are asking the question “Whether it is healthy [our italics] for teenagers to be having sex?”’_[xix]

 By suggesting that the issue surrounding teenage sex is health, CARE is avoiding the moral dimension. But this is a false analysis, for it is obvious that sexual intercourse among married teenagers is perfectly healthy and right—it is teenage sex outside marriage, what used to be called fornication, that is the problem.  And while it is reasonable to warn teenagers of the health dangers associated with sex outside marriage, the really important message for teenagers is that promiscuity is immoral. By promoting the idea that teenage sex is a health issue, and not that fornication is wrong, CARE sidesteps the moral issue.  It appears to be content to suggest that teenagers should delay the onset of sexual activity for health reasons, and reluctant to state, unequivocally, that sexual promiscuity is wrong.  The obvious weakness in CARE’s pragmatic position is this: if the health problems can be overcome, then the objection to promiscuous teenage sex would have disappeared.  The moral teaching of the Bible, however, is clear and unequivocal: ‘Flee from sexual immorality.  Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18). 

 CARE believes that ‘appropriate sex education can take place at school from age 5’._[xx]  ‘Clear, unembarrassed appropriate early sex education provides a good foundation for more detail at secondary school age… Older children can learn more explicit details about sex in the context of loving relationships, with as much emphasis placed on the emotional aspects of teenage sex, pregnancy and abortion, as well as the physical.’_[xxi]  On what biblical authority does CARE make the statement that sex education can take place at school from age five? 

 In Lessons in Depravity we show beyond any doubt that the concept of sex education has come from the sexual revolutionaries such as Marie Stopes, Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy, who have systematically attacked Christian moral teaching.  When we grasp this essential point, the real objective of sex education becomes clear.  Our examination of the history of sex education has shown its close ideological link with the sexual revolutionaries.  We have seen that Marie Stopes, one of the original revolutionaries, was the motivating force behind the FPA, the organisation that sets the sex education agenda for the UK and that ‘educates’ sex educators.  We have seen that the IPPF, the organisation set up to promote the ideology of Margaret Sanger, advocates that sex education, family planning and legal abortion should be accepted as human rights.  The IPPF aims to make sex education for children compulsory, and its Youth Manifesto declares that society must recognise the right of all young people to enjoy sex and to express their sexuality in the way they choose. 

 The revolutionaries – Marie Stopes, Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy – all understood that sex education could be a powerful vehicle for promoting their ideas among children.  Wardell Pomeroy’s two sex education books, Girls and Sex and Boys and Sex, which taught an amoral view of sexual conduct and presented positive images of homosexuality have been enthusiastically promoted by the FPA.  The evidence provided in Lessons in Depravity leaves no doubt that sex education is, in reality, no more than the propaganda arm of the sexual revolution.  In our opinion, the real objective of sex education is, and always has been, to promote the amoral ideology of the sexual revolution.  

 CARE acknowledges that ‘there may be some aspects of sex education where pupils will appreciate being able to talk to adults who are not their teachers’._[xxii]  [What aspects, and who are these adults?]

While emphasising that the information provided must fall within the school sex education policy as set out by the governors, CARE believes that ‘teaching staff can be helped with the task of sex education by networking them with outside agencies and by providing a directory of local and national organisations who can provide resources, support or speakers.’_[xxiii]  And what outside national organisations does CARE have in mind?  And who do CARE have in mind when they suggest that ‘sex education needs to be taught by those who want to do it, and are properly trained to do so’?_[xxiv]  From our study of sex education it is clear that the FPA, Brook and the Health Education Authority fit these criteria.

 4.  Supporting amoral sex education resources

CARE endorses a number of books and sex education resources that present a blatantly amoral view of sexual behaviour.  For example, Body of Knowledge, described by CARE as a resource which provides material for training teachers about sex education in primary schools within a specifically Christian moral framework,_[xxv] asserts: ‘A homosexual relationship is understood to be a partnership between two consenting adults of the same gender who may share sexual attraction and pleasure.  It is acknowledged that men and women can find friendship and fulfilment with those of the same and opposite gender.  Children should be encouraged to see same-gender relationships as part of a natural friendship and not necessarily homosexual.’_[xxvi]  And if a child specifically asks for a teacher’s moral view on a particular controversial subject, such as, ‘Is abortion wrong?’ the teacher can say, ‘People have very different beliefs about this and everyone needs to think about it carefully’ or ‘It is not important what I think about it, people have different opinions and have to decide what is right for themselves.’_[xxvii] [our italics]  According to Body of Knowledge, if teachers are unclear about policy they should direct questions to the headteacher, the Family Planning Association or the Sex Education Forum._[xxviii] Moreover, Body of Knowledge provides a long list of recommended resources, including many publications from the FPA, Brook and the HEA.  In particular, the FPA’s Primary School Workbook (1993) written by Gill Lenderyou is listed as a resource which can be used in promoting good practice_[xxix].  Background reading for teachers, governors and parents includes Doreen Massey’s School sex education, Why, What and How (1991) produced by the FPA.  Useful addresses provided for teachers, parents and school governors include the FPA, Brook, the HEA and the Sex Education Forum._[xxx] Body of Knowledge recommends Knowing me, knowing you as a book of practical ideas and workshops for primary school sex education.

 CARE’s list of resources refers to Knowing me, knowing you, a sex education manual for primary schoolchildren, as containing ‘useful material with some excellent activities and worksheets’._[xxxi]  The manual claims that there is a need for sex education in the primary school, and sets out an agenda and list of activities to help teachers. _[xxxii]  The role of the teacher is: not giving ‘rights and wrongs’; allowing exploration of personal values by providing a non-threatening, open climate; enabling the child by sharing rather than directing and imposing; being non-judgemental and as neutral as possible._[xxxiii] 

 What are the ‘excellent’ exercises and activities endorsed by CARE?  One exercise helps children to understand polite and impolite words for the sexual parts of men and women and for sexual activity.  Working in pairs, primary schoolchildren are invited to think about impolite sexual words,_[xxxiv] and brainstorm on the reasons why people have sex._[xxxv]  Teachers are advised that to teach about the traditional family ‘might well be downright offensive to some’ children, and are encouraged to teach about homosexuality and ‘challenge prejudice and discrimination when it rears its head in the classroom’._[xxxvi]

 Another activity assesses the primary schoolchildren’s understanding of sexual penetration—working in pairs children are invited to put a circle around statements such as, ‘for sexual penetration to take place, a man’s penis has to be hard’ or ‘for sexual penetration to take place, a man has to lie on top of the other person’ [the phrase ‘other person’ implies either male or female], if they think they are true.  The primary schoolchildren are then asked to compare answers with their partner.  Children are offered a worksheet with information on masturbation: ‘some people enjoy rubbing these areas in a certain way.  If they do this for a while, they may reach a moment when it is very exciting’.  Children are asked to respond to questions such as, ‘To my knowledge I have never masturbated.  Is this okay?’ and ‘Can it hurt me?’ and ‘Does everybody do it?’_[xxxvii]  Children are given a list of the advantages and disadvantages of contraceptives.  The advantages of the condom are that it is easy to obtain from a chemist or family planning clinic and easy to use.  It can also protect against STDs.  Against is the fact that it is important to put one on before penetration, it must be taken off carefully and needs gentle handling._[xxxviii] 

 The whole class continuum is an activity to encourage children to explore issues and attitudes together.  ‘The teacher displays the sheet of paper entitled True at one end of the room, and the sheet entitled False at the other end of the room, and indicates these to the children.  The teacher also points out an imaginary line joining one to the other.  The teacher then reads out a statement which relates to a forthcoming subject to be covered.  The children are asked to stand at some point on the line, according to whether they think the statement is true or false.  They can be somewhere in the middle.’_[xxxix]  It is helpful if the teacher points out that they do not have to go to one extremity or the other.  Suggested continuum statements include the following: ‘It is embarrassing for a girl to carry a condom’ or ‘one in every ten people is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex’ or ‘masturbation is bad for you’ or ‘people always have sex in bed’ or ‘for sexual activity, the man has to lie on top of the woman’.  The teacher can ask different children why they are standing in a particular place on the continuum. 

 It is not difficult to see the similarity between this activity and that recommended by CARE in Parents First to help Christian parents understand that people hold a range of views on moral issues.  The underlying purpose is to indoctrinate children with the idea that truth and morality are relative concepts.  There is no absolute right or wrong, no absolute truth.  Significantly, Knowing me, knowing you was advertised by Brook in its 1991and 2001 catalogues.  This suggests a level of agreement between Brook and CARE about the type of sex education that is suitable for primary schoolchildren.

 The book Sexuality is endorsed by CARE’s resource list as covering some good ground: ‘body image, stereotyping, type of relationships, decision making, feeling good’._[xl]  The book recommends word games to help people feel comfortable talking about sexuality. An exercise on decision making has the caption: ‘Don’t let anyone push you into doing something which doesn’t feel right.  You must do what’s right for you.’  The section on safer sex and contraception reminds young people that ‘if you decide to have sexual intercourse with someone, you will need to think about contraception, and making sex safer’.  Sexuality provides the addresses of the FPA, Brook and Health Education Authority and advises young people to collect some of their leaflets.  ‘If possible, obtain samples of contraceptives.  Your family planning clinic, or health promotion resource library, will have a contraceptive kit which they might lend your college or school.’_[xli]  Once again CARE is content to guide teachers to a sex education book that advertises the FPA and Brook.  

 5.  The biblical view of sexual behaviour

On the basis of the above analysis we believe that the view of sexual behaviour that CARE is teaching is fundamentally opposed to God’s moral law.  The Bible’s teaching on sexual conduct is based on the concept of sexual purity, which flows from the holiness that is central to the character of God.  In his book, The Beauty of God’s Holiness, Thomas Trevethan shows that holiness is the fundamental attribute of God that conditions and qualifies all other attributes.  ‘The true God is distinct, set apart, from all that he has made as the only truly self-sufficient Being.  All his creatures depend on him; he alone exists from within himself.  And the true God is distinct, set apart, from all that is evil.  His moral perfection is absolute.  His character as expressed in his will, forms the absolute standard of moral excellence.  God is holy, the absolute point of reference for all that exists and is good.’_[xlii]  In a vision of heaven, the prophet Isaiah sees the Lord seated on his throne and is overwhelmed by the holiness of God, as the seraphim call to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole world is full of his glory’ (Isaiah 6:2-3). The Lord God of the Bible lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16); his eyes are too pure to look on evil and he cannot tolerate wrong (Habakkuk 1:13).  

 The Bible makes it clear that holiness must be exhibited in the sexual realm.  ‘It is God’s will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God…For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7,8. NIV). 

 Christian sexual conduct is expressed in the four virtues—modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity.  Sexual purity is the foundation on which these virtues are built.  While each virtue applies to an aspect of sexual behaviour, together they form a coherent inner belief system that witnesses to God’s holiness, and sets a standard for sexual conduct that gives meaning to marriage and the family.  Modesty is the virtue that recognises the rightful purpose of sex as something private, mysterious, and meant for the relationship between husband and wife.  Modesty discourages lust and encourages faithful love.  Chivalry is the virtue that teaches men to relate to women with honour and respect.  It gives men the inner motivation to practise self-control, honesty and decency in relationships.  Chastity is based in the desire for sexual purity, both before and after marriage.  It welcomes the discipline of self-control and self-denial.  Fidelity is based in faithfulness that rejoices in the lifelong nature of the marriage union, and so provides security for all members of the family.  Modesty and chivalry are the roots from which the virtues of chastity and fidelity grow, flourish and bear the fruits of marital faithfulness and family security.  Without the desire for purity there is no inner moral foundation and so the virtues of modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity when faced with sexual temptation lose their cohesion and gradually decay.  Marriage and the family flourish when all four virtues are practised.  And most important of all, these are the Christian virtues that guard children from danger and abuse—they provide children with God-given security, protecting them from the ravages that result from sexual immorality.  In his great wisdom, God has instituted moral laws around human sexual conduct that preserve marriage, secure the family and protect children.  These virtues are based in the holy, righteous character of God, and are reflected in his moral law.

 We believe that there is a vast gulf between the biblical view of sexual behaviour outlined above and CARE’s sex education.  In our opinion, CARE needs to seriously rethink what it is doing.  Moreover, we believe that the thousands of Christians who provide financial support for CARE should be aware of CARE’s teaching on sexual conduct.  We will send you a copy of Lessons in Depravity when it is published next month.  We look forward to your response.

 Yours sincerely,

 Dr Ted Williams and Jack Proom

Click here to return home.   Click here to go to the top of the page