The Christian response to sex education

By ES Williams

In the Oxford History of England, Sir Robert Ensor reaches the conclusion: ‘No one will ever understand Victorian England who does not appreciate that among highly civilised countries it was one of the most religious that the world has known.  Moreover, its particular type of Christianity laid a direct emphasis upon conduct…’_[i]  David Edwards, in his three volumes on Christian England, concludes that Victorian England for all its faults was one of the peaks of Christian civilisation.  

Towards the end of the 19^th century, while Nietzsche and Freud were developing their amoral philosophies in Europe, a small group of ‘new men’ and ‘new women’ were emerging in England who were determined to liberate society from what they saw as repressive biblical morality.  Consistent with Nietzsche’s amoral philosophy they sought liberation from the old moral code as it applied to sexual behaviour.   

The Christian consensus on sexual morality was under threat.  The revolutionaries were against marriage, which oppressed women, and the authoritarian family.  They wanted sexual freedom, what they called ‘free love’.  Many wanted homosexuality to become socially acceptable.  They were, in fact, the pioneers of the sexual revolution that was to strike with such force in the 1960s and 70s.  But why such hatred towards marriage and the family?

Biblical teaching on sexual conduct

One of the great triumphs of the Christian Church has been its influence on sexual conduct.  For a thousand years the people of this land have accepted that the Bible provides the only sure guide for sexual behaviour.  In the past, many of the laws that relate to sexual conduct, marriage and the family were based on biblical principles.

Sexual purity

The Christian Church has always believed and taught that sexual purity is the foundation of marriage. ‘But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity… these things are improper for God’s holy people (Ephesians 5:3).  And ‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral’ (Hebrews 13:4).  It was widely acknowledge that impurity, sexual immorality, fornication and adultery are the enemies of marriage.  God’s plan for marriage cannot flourish in a society in which sexual immorality is accepted as the norm.

 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. The true God is distinct and set apart from all that is evil.  His moral perfection is absolute.  Righteousness is the sceptre of His kingdom.  His character, as expressed in his will, forms the absolute standard of moral excellence.  His Word 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…’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7,8. NIV). 

Christian virtues

Christian sexual conduct is expressed in four virtues—modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity.  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 that gives meaning to marriage and the family.  Modesty is the virtue that enhances the inner beauty of women.  It reveals itself in the way a woman behaves, dresses, and speaks.  It 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 a way of life that seeks after God’s holiness.  Based in the desire for sexual purity, it welcomes the discipline of self-control and self-denial.  Fidelity 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.  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.  It is this moral law that the sexual revolution seeks to destroy.   

 In my first talk we saw that the message of sex education is fundamentally amoral. In Lessons in Depravity I concluded that sex education is a product of the sexual revolution against biblical standards, and so its real objective is to promote the amoral ideology of the revolution.

 Sex education and the sexual revolution

Some people will be surprised at this conclusion, for it is widely believed in society that sex education is essential to help young people cope with modern life.  So it is necessary to examine an example that shows, in the clearest terms, the relationship between sex education and the sexual revolution.  This point is of the utmost importance, for we will not response adequately unless we understand this relationship.  As I will demonstrate later, some Christians who have failed to grasp this relationship and have been seduced into joining the sex education bandwagon.  

In 1978 Virago Press published the sex education manual Make it Happy by Jane Cousins.  It won The Times Educational Supplement’s Book Award.  According to the blurb, the manual is ‘written for teenagers, their parents and teachers and for anyone else who wants to know the basic facts’._[ii]  Dr Peter Jackson of the FPA praises Make it Happy as ‘a book that should be in every teenager’s library.’ Joan Bakewell endorses the book as ‘friendly, uncondescending and direct – a good start for teenagers in search of basic facts’._[iii]   Without doubt, this book meets with the unqualified support of the sex education movement.  Indeed, the Health Education Council was so impressed with Make it Happy that it was promoted in their list of sex education resources.  

An analysis of Make it Happy shows the following: First, it provides teenagers with the most wide-ranging, explicit, factual information about sex that could enter anyone’s mind, including information on bestiality, incest and paedophilia.  Second, it supports Alfred Kinsey’s view of sexuality as a continuum with bisexuality as the norm.  Teenagers are informed that, ‘Many people if left to their own natural instincts might find they were bisexual and could enjoy relationships with women and men.’_[iv] 

 Third, the language is explicit and coarse.  Indeed, the explicit tone of the book can be judged from the fact that it contains an explicit picture of two naked men that leaves nothing to the imagination._[v] 

 Fourth, the ethic that permeates the book is that teenagers are free to do whatever they want to, whatever feels right in their own eyes. ‘Whether you want sex and how far you want to go [depends] on how you feel in yourself as an individual…’_[vi]

 The amoral tone of Make it Happy is so disturbing that it was labelled as obscene in the House of Commons, and the Health Education Council was told by the Government to withdraw it from their reading list.  This they failed to do.

 The book effectively teaches teenagers the ideology of the sexual revolution.  Having provided children with an encyclopaedic knowledge on sex, they are told they should do what they want, it is their own decision and nobody else should influence the way they behave.                       

The propaganda of sex education

The Family Planning Association and Brook were the first organisations to use propaganda techniques to promote the messages of the sexual revolution.  While these organisations are ideologically committed to the revolution they do not openly declare their intentions.  Instead, they achieve their objectives by means of a propaganda war—the main vehicle for their indoctrination is what has come to be known as ‘sex education’. 

 One of the most common of propaganda devices is the use of virtuous words.  By this device the sex propagandist identifies his programme with favourable words such as ‘family’ and ‘education’.  It is instructive to note that the Birth Control Council changed its name to the ‘Family’ Planning Association.  It was a propaganda masterstroke for an organisation promoting the ideals of the sexual revolution to associate itself with the word ‘family’, a word that has favourable connotations in our minds.  Notice the incredible irony that the unmarried teenager who uses contraceptives to avoid becoming pregnant is said to be practising ‘family’ planning. Who would suspect that the ideology of the ‘Family’ Planning Association is intent on undermining the traditional family? 

 The phrase ‘sex education’ also has real propaganda value in that the majority of people accept that education must be a good thing. Linking the words ‘sex’ and ‘education’ was another brilliant propaganda move by the sexual revolutionaries, for by making sex an academic subject to be taught in schools it legitimised the agenda of the sexual revolution.  The open and explicit discussion of sex became acceptable when it was done under the umbrella of sex education.

 The demoralisation of sex

A key aim of the sexual revolution is the demoralisation of sexual behaviour.  It is essential to understand this point.  The sexual revolution wants sex without moral restraint.  

 The IPPF believes that it is always a mistake to enter into debates on questions of morality.  Instead, the approach of those who advocate contraception for children, abortion and sex education should be to insist on free and informed choice._[vii]  This is an interesting admission for it shows that the IPPF and its constituent FPAs are striving to demoralise all discussions on contraception, abortion and sex education.  They are uncomfortable entering into moral debates for fear that the immorality of their ideology will be revealed when exposed to biblical truth.

 While the anti-Christian position of the revolutionaries is obvious, and they do not try to hide their hatred of traditional Christian morality, the sex educators, as propagandists for the revolution, are more careful about revealing their hostility to the Christian faith.  They use of a number of subtle devices or ploys to demoralise sexual conduct.   The first is to claim that sex education should be value-free and non-judgemental.  This means that no sexual practices can be condemned as wrong or immoral.  But this approach is unpopular for most parents want sex education to be taught within a moral framework.  

Positive morality

The next approach is to say that sex education should be taught in a ‘positive’ moral framework, without specifying what that moral framework should be.  This has deceived many people, for they assume that in the UK this means a Christian moral framework.  But this is not the case.  What most people do not know is that a so-called ‘positive morality’ is a feature of the pagan creed, often expressed by the phrase ‘do what you want, as long as it harms none’.  Another feature of paganism is that it avoids a list of thou-shalt-nots,_[viii] a pejorative phrase for God’s moral law.  So the ideology of sex education, which claims to teach children positive values, which avoids judgemental thou-shalt-nots, and which encourages children to do as they want, is perfectly consistent with the pagan ethic.  Positive values have nothing to do with biblical morality. 

 Values clarification

Another technique used by sex education is that of values clarification.  It is a technique that seeks to challenge traditional moral standards that children have been taught by their parents.  Everything a child has been taught about morality, sexual conduct, family and parents is taken apart and ‘clarified’.  Doubt is cast on all moral teaching, and children are left with the clear impression that, as there is no absolute moral law, they are free to develop their own system of values and beliefs. The assumption underlying values clarification is a point of view that promotes moral relativism. 

Self-esteem

Another method of demoralising sexual conduct is the appeal to self-esteem. Guidance from the Department of Education emphasises the importance of building self-esteem in school children.  The appeal to self-esteem persuades young people that their sexual choices should be made on the basis of how they feel about themselves and not on any objective moral standard.  The self-esteem approach avoids warning children that certain behaviours are wrong, because to do so would make them feel bad about themselves and lower their self-esteem.  Many New Age techniques are used to promote positive self-esteem.

The effect of demoralising sex is that no conduct is, of itself, wrong.  It follows that sex education does not teach that promiscuous sex, homosexuality, abortion, cohabitation or adultery is wrong.  In the view of sex education the only problem with promiscuity is that it may result in an unintended pregnancy or STD, and provided that these problems can be avoided by contraception, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with promiscuity. Demoralisation allows children to be taught anything about sex—there is no boundary.  Consequently, explicit sexual images and lewd language, which would be regarded as pornographic outside the school classroom, are justified in the name of sex education.

Making ‘informed’ choices

Having demoralised sexual conduct, sex education promotes the dogma of ‘informed choice’ to help children make decisions about sexual behaviour.  A teenager is presented with a variety of ‘morally equivalent’ options from which to make an ‘informed choice’.  For example, a teenager presented with the options of abstaining or having sex, and given a range of facts about sex and contraception to help with the decision. The options are presented in a morally neutral framework.  In other words, both are viable options and the choice a teenager makes is not really important—as the HEA puts it: ‘If you’ve decided you’re not ready for sex them fine.’_[ix]  What is important is that she makes her own decision, not influenced by anybody else, and especially not by the teachings of the Bible or the traditional views of her parents.  And if a teenager becomes pregnant, sex education offers her three options from which to make her ‘informed choice’—she can keep the baby, put it up for adoption or have an abortion.  Teenagers are persuaded that their ‘informed decision’ is a morally neutral action—they are not warned of the moral consequences.

The false presuppositions of sex education 

The messages of sex education are based on three false assumptions.  The first is that it is natural for children to be sexually promiscuous, the second is that children are sexually ignorant.  The third assumption, which follows on from the first two, is that children need to be educated in the skills of ‘safer sex’ to avoid sexual tragedies. 

 The fallacy that sexual promiscuity is natural

Sex education assumes that it is inevitable that young people are sexually active.  That is, promiscuity is the norm.  So the issue is simply to prevent them from becoming pregnant.

 But the assumption that children are basically amoral is false, for human beings, created in the image of God, have a conscience that writes the law of God in their hearts.  Even those who are not Christians know in their conscience that sex outside marriage is wrong.  And those children who have been taught the basics of biblical morality have a tender conscience that warns them against promiscuity—they know in their inner being that it is wrong to have casual sex.  Young girls, in particular, have a natural aversion to promiscuity, for they have an innate fear of becoming pregnant.  They know that sex may result in pregnancy, and they fear the consequences of becoming an unmarried mother, or, worse, of having an abortion.  This fear acts as a natural restraint against promiscuous sex.  However, it is not only the fear of pregnancy that acts as a natural restraint, but also the knowledge that to ‘have sex’ is a huge life-changing step, from which there is no returning.  Such a decision cannot be taken lightly and in their hearts most women want to remain chaste until they are married. 

 The fallacy of sexual ignorance

Sex education assumes that ignorance is a major cause of sexual tragedies.  According to the Government one of the main reasons for the high teenage pregnancy rate is ignorance—‘young people lack accurate knowledge about contraception…’_[x] On the strength of this false assumption, sex education has deceived most people into believing that children need to be taught the facts about sex and contraception.  But this is a lie.  

While sex education gives children facts about sex, it does not tell them the truth about the consequences of sexual immorality.  The underlying agenda of the sex educator is to use sexual facts to introduce amoral, unnatural sexual thoughts into the minds of innocent children on the pretext of giving them ‘truth’.  Here it is important to make the distinction between facts and truth, for ‘facts’ are not truth.  Facts can be used, and are used, to corrupt and deprave, whereas truth always has a moral dimension and never corrupts.  Truth is based in God’s word and always promotes sexual morality and what is decent, pure and right.  Facts, on the other hand, contain no moral dimension and may be used to promote immorality. 

So facts about sex, without the moral implications that flow from those facts, do not constitute truth, but a pathway to sexual temptation. The sexual facts imparted by sex education undermine sexual purity and invite lustful thoughts.  The real purpose of the facts, so beloved by the sex educators, is to gradually introduce children into the perverted mindset of the sexual revolutionaries.

The fallacy of ‘safer sex’

Another assumption of sex education is that contraception prevents sexual tragedies.  Sex education dogma consistently repeats the mantra, ‘condoms prevent pregnancy and STDs’.  And so few people realise that most teenagers who become pregnant have been using contraception. An assessment of contraception in the UK describes a failure rate of between 10 and 19% per year for women of who use condoms for contraception.  And the failure rate among teenagers is higher._[xi]  This means that about one in six teenagers who depend upon condoms for contraception are at risk of pregnancy during each year of sexual activity. 

When I was Director of Public Health for Croydon Health Authority, all the evidence I came across convinced me of the inability of contraception to avoid pregnancies among teenagers.  To demonstrate this point I examined the relationship between the use of condoms at first sexual intercourse, and the conception rate among under 16-year-olds, for the period 1975 to 1991.  My letter, published in the British Medical Journal, showed a remarkably powerful correlation between the two trends, with pregnancies increasing (not decreasing) with increasing condom use._[xii]  A feasible explanation is that the promotion of contraception among the young has contributed to an increase in promiscuous sexual behaviour, which in turn has inevitably contributed to the increase in teenage pregnancies.  The letter concludes, ‘Sex education and the national campaign to promote contraception through safer sex campaigns have undoubtedly been successful in increasing the proportion of teenagers who use condoms.  Most people assume that increasing the use of contraception leads to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies.  Yet my analysis shows that this has not happened.  A plausible explanation is that the main factor in unplanned teenage pregnancy is contraceptive failure, not the lack of contraceptive knowledge and availability.’_[xiii]

Sex education and the Church

We now have the situation in the UK where few Christians are prepared to tackle the moral evils associated with sex education.  There is virtually no Christian opposition to the claim that children need to receive sex education in school.  While acknowledging the shortcomings of secular sex education and accepting that some resource materials are too explicit, most Christians believe that the basic aims of sex education are, in fact, good.  Many feel that children should be taught the facts of life and need to understand their sexuality in order to have successful relationships.  So the issue is to develop a ‘Christian’ version of sex education that avoids the excesses of the secular sex educators such as Brook and the FPA.  What is surprising about this approach is that it seems oblivious to the amorality that is such a feature of sex education.

The leading Christian organisations involved in sex education are Christian Action, Research and Education (CARE) and the Oasis Trust, founded by Steve Chalke.  Both have sex education programmes which teach a wide range of sexual facts, promote abstinence as an option, and invite young people to make ‘healthy, informed choice’ based on self-esteem.  None use the Scriptures in a meaningful way, and none warn of the dangers of sexual immorality.      

CARE and sex education

CARE claims that, although there is debate as to the best methods of reducing teenage pregnancies, ‘there is no doubt that schools are recognised as having a part to play.  Sex education is not an issue that can be ignored!’_[xiv]   CARE believes that ‘appropriate sex education can take place at school from age 5’._[xv]  ‘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.’_[xvi]

 CARE’s sex education video, Make Love Last, contains smutty sexual innuendoes, and is replete with coarse language.  Its message on sexual behaviour – ‘Everyone has the right to say no, I don’t want sex with you now’ – is delivered by the agony aunt of Just 17 magazine, widely known for its sleazy approach to sexual matters.  The aim of its new sex education programme, Evaluate – informing choice, is to empower young people to make healthy informed choices and to support young people in delaying sex experience until a committed relationship, ideally marriage.  As the Evaluate programme provides education about choices available to people in the light of STDs, ‘this will include education about condom use’.  CARE’s programme states that it provides advice in accordance with the World Health Organisation position, which is ‘abstinence and fidelity between uninfected partners and safer sex can prevent the transmission of HIV.  Safer sex includes non-penetrative sex and sex using condoms.’_[xvii]

 Christian Aid promotes ABC

And looking beyond the UK we see Christian Aid promoting a condom based approach in Africa with the blessing of the Archbishop of Cape Town.  Christian Aid advocates a vigorous programme of sex education that promotes abstinence, faithfulness and safer sex.  It ensures that children from the age of 10 years have all the information and skills they need about sex and contraception, and teaches children the life skills to communicate about sex, to say “no”, and to negotiate safer sex._[xviii]

 So the final amoral approach to sex education has been to develop a so-called ‘Christian’ version which promotes abstinence as a positive, healthy choice, and at the same time teaches children about condoms and the message of ‘safer sex’.  So is there a Christian version of sex education?  Of course not.  Sex education is an ideological weapon of the sexual revolution and should be expose for the moral evil that it is, and not whitewashed with a veneer of Christian jargon.   

The folly of abstinence education

There is now a major movement among sex educators, both secular and ‘Christian’ to promote abstinence as the answer to the problem of teenage sexual tragedies.  Abstinence is often part of the ABC approach—that is, abstain, be faithful and condoms.  Many Christians are deceived into believing that abstinence and chastity are the same thing.  But this is not the case.

 Abstinence is a lifestyle choice to refrain from certain sexual activities for an unspecified period.  There are two approaches.  Abstinence-only, where the focus is on encouraging teenagers not to have sex, and equipping them with skills such as assertiveness and self-esteem to fulfil this goal.  Abstinence-plus programmes present the same message but also provide information and advice on contraception._[xix] The meaning of abstinence is unclear. According to the sex education programme Love for Life, ‘abstinence may be defined in a variety of different ways.  It can mean no sexual touching at all, some sexual touching, or everything except penetrative sexual intercourse.  This can be very confusing as you try to make choices for yourself regarding the decision to be abstinent or not…’_[xx]

 Most abstinence programmes use an appeal to self-esteem to encourage teenagers to make an informed decision to with regard to sexual behaviour.  The message is fundamentally amoral, and many abstinence programmes go out of their way to state that they are not motivated by moral considerations, but are purely health orientated.

 The error of the mad prophet Balaam

Today the spirit of the mad prophet Balaam has invaded the Church.  The Scriptures give the strongest warning against the error of Balaam in 2 Peter: 15-16, Jude 11 and Revelation 2:14.  For the sake of financial gain, to please a pagan king, and because he loved the wages of unrighteousness, he taught the people of God to sin by committing sexual immorality.  Many sex education programmes developed by so-called Christian organisations are substantially the same as those of the secular sex educators.  Many are deceived into following the shameful ways of the sexual revolution and are bringing the way of the truth into disrepute.  They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam of Beor (2 Peter 2:15).  While it is true that Christian sex educators avoid the more blatant, explicit practises of the Brook and FPA, their underlying messages are the same.

 In my view the threat imposed by so-called ‘Christian’ sex education is greater than that of the secular educators.  At least the secular sex educators are openly amoral, and it is fairly easy to see that their message is anti-Christian.  They are, after all, promoting a sexual revolution against biblical morality.  We know that they are the enemies of the Gospel of Christ.  The Christian sex educators, on the other hand, have an appearance of respectability as they teach their ‘nice’ version of sex education in the name of the Christian Church.  Their sex education programmes are replete with words such as ‘abstinence’, ‘healthy choice’, ‘positive values’, ‘appropriate sex education’, ‘informed decision’, ‘self-esteem’, but behind this facade of words is the amoral teaching of the sexual revolution.  The apostle Jude warns of those who have ‘slipped in secretly among you.  They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality’ (Jude 4).  What is so tragic is that these amoral ‘Christian’ sex education programmes are being funded by donations from Christian people.  And worst is the fact that most churches are content with the status quo, are content to leave the moral instruction of the nation’s children in the hands of these compromised organisations.  God is not pleased!  Their folly must be made plain to all.

 What is the responsibility of the true church? 

Let us first consider parental responsibility.  It is the responsibility of all parents to teach their children a moral framework on which to base their lives, and this is especially true when it comes to sexual conduct.  The Christian home is a means of bringing children up in the training and instruction of the Lord.  The assertion of the sex education movement that parents should talk to their children about sex is contrary to biblical teaching.  In biblical times it was the Canaanites who were obsessed with sex and used children in sexual rituals.  The people of God, on the other hand, talked to their children about the law of God and instructed them in the moral standards by which they ought to live.  Obviously parents give advice to their children at the appropriate time.

 Children from single parent families need to be taught to truth about marriage and the family.  Most long for something better for their children.    

 School sex education

This presents a real problem for parents.  Schools differ considerably in what and how they teach sex education.  I believe that if that sex education is extremely vulnerable to a moral challenge.  There is nothing that sex education fears more than having there messages being exposed to the light of biblical truth. The leaflet Sex education and the Bible has been written in order to expose sex education to the light of God’s Word.  If a large number of parents object to the amoral, ‘safer sex’ message the sex educators will be put under pressure to change.  School governors are ideally placed to question the moral framework of the sex education programme.  Make the school aware of God’s truth.  Ask if children can be given a truly informed choice by presenting the tradition view of morality as taught in the Bible. 

Withdrawing children can be a very lonely, difficult path, for children may face ridicule and persecution.  But if enough Christians do so the Government will get the message that parents will not stand for their children being indoctrinated by the false claims of the ‘safer sex’ message.  Nevertheless, even if children are withdrawn, they will still be taught the essential message of safer sex as part of the national curriculum. 

 The Church

The Church must teach God’s truth with regard to sexual conduct.  We must teach the virtues that the sexual revolution is seeking to destroy.  I would encourage church leaders to give special attention to this matter.  About 6 million items of literature are distributed annually promoting the sexual revolution. We need a Christian response; we need develop literature for young people that expose the false messages of sex education and teaches God’s standards.  Christians in education and health must take opportunities to witness to God’s truth.

 The Church must exercise a prophetic ministry in society, exposing and condemning the evil of sex education.  We must warn society of the danger of widespread sexual immorality.  The God of the Bible hates evil, and in Deuteronomy six times commands his people to purge the evil from among them.  God in his goodness and holiness is actively and intensely set against evil. In view of God’s holiness the Christian has an obligation to expose the fruitlessly deeds of darkness and to oppose their wicked practices. There can be no compromise with the detestable teachings of sex education.  The struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.  Sex education is one of the devil’s cunning schemes we are warned about in the sixth chapter of Ephesians.  To take a stand against this evil we need the full armour of God—the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith and the helmet of salvation.  The weapon with which to attack the forces of evil is the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  ‘This is the judgement: the light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil.  Wrongdoers hate the light and avoid it, for fear their misdeeds should be exposed’ (John 3:19-20).  With the full armour of God the Christian Church should take a stand against the evil of sex education.   Return to top of page