|
Our examination of biblical standards have revealed an
unbridgeable chasm between God’s moral law and the ideology behind the sex
education that is being promoted by the Government, and its agent organisations
like the FPA and Brook. In chapter 17 we saw that sexual purity, which flows
from the holiness of God, is undermined by explicit sex education, and in
chapter 18 we saw that the underlying ideology of sex education is profoundly
hostile to marriage and the traditional family. Christians can no longer avoid
the uncomfortable truth that sex education imposes serious moral dangers, and
many people are now starting to realise that something needs to be done to
protect children from the worst excesses of the sex educators. Parents cannot,
with a clear conscience, simply abandon their children to the amoral teaching of
the sex educators. But what should be done? How should Christians counter the
false teachings of sex education?
In my view, the Christian
witness is ineffective because of a widespread reluctance to use biblical truth
to counter the amoral ideology that lies behind sex education. Many Christians
believe that it is futile to use the Bible because nobody takes it seriously any
more. I attended a meeting of people deeply concerned about sex education where
the plea was for doctors to produce evidence to show the harmful health effects
of contraceptives on children. The hope was that if convincing evidence could
be produced, then maybe the Government could be persuaded to modify its policy.
Christians are being encouraged to enter the debate on sociological and health
grounds, demonstrating the negative health effects of contraception, arguing
that sex education is not effective in preventing teenage pregnancies.
Those who promote this point
of view fail to understand that the moment Christians enter into a debate about
the ‘evidence’, they are, in fact, condoning the xe "demoralisation
of sex"demoralisation of sexual behaviour,
and their arguments soon become indistinguishable from those of the sex
educators. This is because the real issues are moral in nature, and cannot be
decided on the basis of ‘evidence’ or expert opinion. Indeed, it is axiomatic
that God’s revealed xe "moral law"moral
law alone can answer moral questions. All the evidence in the world does not
affect God’s moral truth. More-over, as sex education is ideologically based it
is impervious to facts or reasoned argument; the sex educators only accept those
facts that support their ideological position. So the appeal to evidence is not
only futile – for the evidence is always open to dispute – but unwise, for it
denies the moral imperative that lies behind sexual conduct.
The Bible teaches that the
concept of moral obligation flows from the truth that human beings, created in
the image of God, have moral responsibility. All morality is grounded in the
character of the Lord God who made the world and everything in it; all moral
distinctions flow from God’s moral law. Moreover, the whole world is held
accountable to God for their actions, and all will appear before the judgement
seat of God. According to David Jones, writing in Biblical Christian Ethics,
‘The xe "moral law"moral
law is that which is universally and perpetually binding on human beings by
virtue of their creation in the image of God. The substance of the moral law is
the same whether revealed in human nature or in the Scripture.’1
The Bible makes it plain that God’s law is for all people, and especially for
the irreligious and unbeliever. The unbelieving world needs to hear the moral
law of God just as much as the Christian world does. ‘We also know that the law
is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and
sinful, the unholy and irreligious’ (1 Timothy 1:9). Furthermore, the moral
law of God serves the purpose of restraining evil and promoting righteousness.
It brings people under conviction of sin, pointing them to their need of
salvation through faith. For believers it is a rule of life, reminding us of how
we ought to live.2
In my view, it is unwise for
Christians to discuss sexual conduct without reference to God’s word, for it
alone has the authority to distinguish right from wrong. As sex education deals
with moral issues, it must be approached from within the moral framework of
biblical revelation. If Christians ignore this truth, our position is
compromised, for we have fallen into the trap of demoralising sexual conduct.
We have moved into the mindset of the sexual revolutionaries, and now the
argument is about who can produce the best ‘evidence’. Moreover, because God’s
moral law is based in righteousness and goodness, it has an enormous appeal to
the hearts of men, women and children. And in our postmodern society there is a
growing hunger for truth, for many people know in their consciences that the
Bible provides the standard by which they ought to live. Most parents want
their children to be taught the difference between right and wrong, and are
delighted when the Church gives a clear moral lead, and pronounces
unequivocally, with all the authority of God’s word, that promiscuity and
homosexuality are wrong.
Christians therefore must
have the courage to engage in the issues raised by sex education with their
Bibles open. Of course, our opponents will claim that nobody will listen, that
the Bible is irrelevant, judgemental, patriarchal, out of date and all the
rest. Of course, our opponents will say that young people don’t listen to the
Bible any more, that it puts them off. Of course, those who promote the amoral
messages of sex education do not want children to hear what the Bible has to
say. But how can Christians take a stand against one of the greatest moral
evils of our time without the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit?
God has promised that the word that goes out from his mouth will not return to
him empty, ‘but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which
I sent it’ (Isaiah 55:11). In moral warfare, in our struggle against spiritual
forces in high places, the Christian must enter the battle with the full armour
of God, including the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians
6:17). ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any
double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’ (Hebrews 4:12). The
message of the Bible is powerful because it appeals to the heart of man; the
Holy Spirit convicts ‘the world of guilt in regard to sin, righteousness and
judgement’ (John 16:8).
Unfortunately we now have the
situation in the UK where few Christians are prepared to tackle, without
compromise, the moral evils associated with sex education. Like the children of
Israel, we prefer to come to an accommodation with the detestable practices of
the Canaanites. So there is virtually no Christian opposition to the claim of
the sexual revolutionaries that children need to receive sex education in
school. Most Christians accept, without any biblical justification, the view
that children need sex education—and so the challenge is to find a sensitive
‘Christian’ version. Those who support this view argue that it is not good
enough for Christians simply to criticise the sex education that is being
delivered by the Government, we need to come forward with a positive
alternative. 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 argue that children 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 secular sex education. What is surprising about this approach is
that it seems oblivious to the amorality that is such a feature of the sex
education propagated by the State. The purpose of this chapter is to examine
the sex education that is being promoted in the name of Christianity.
Christian views on sex education
The leading Christian organisation involved in sex
education is Christian Action, Research and Education (CARE). It claims that
although there is a debate in society as to the best methods of reducing teenage
pregnancies, as well as ways to reduce under-age sexual activity, ‘there is no
doubt that schools are recognised as having a part to play. Sex education is
not an issue that can be ignored!’3 It
appears that CARE accepts, without question, the need for children to be taught
about sex in the school classroom. The only question is what they should be
taught, and how it should be taught. They are seeking a Christian version of sex
education. The Christian Institute, in its Manifesto for Marriage in Sex
Education, is against what it calls explicit, extreme sex education and
proposes five principles that should guide the way sex education is delivered in
the classroom.4 The Maranatha Community
is strongly opposed to current trends in sex education and believes that
children should be taught about marriage and self-control. While it believes
that ‘the presentation of factual information should be carefully balanced with
modesty and self-respect and always within the context of a moral framework,’5
it is becoming increasingly sceptical about the value of much sex education in
the school classroom. In a submission to the Health Committee of the House of
Commons, Maranatha expressed the view that ‘in some sex education programmes
children are cruelly introduced to adult sexual practices some of which are
utterly grotesque. At a sensitive and impressionable time in their lives they
are often given misleading information…Educational material should be produced
warning of the huge dangers of promiscuity, and should be intensely promoted
throughout the country, particularly amongst young people.’6
CARE’s approach to sex education
CARE has been involved with sex education since the early
1990s, and in 1994 produced the video Make Love Last, with the message
that it’s okay to say ‘no’ to sex. The project was partly funded by the
Department of Health and the video has been widely bought and used by secondary
schools. In 1995, CARE produced a training package Parents First –
Sex Education within the Home, which focuses on the importance of parents
having the first responsibility for their children’s sex education, and
encourages parents to talk to their children about sex. In 1997, CARE for
Education launched two CD-ROMs, Growing Up Together, for primary schools,
which address sex education at Key Stages 1 and 2. CARE for Education also
works with head teachers, teachers and school governors and the document Your
School and Sex Education (1996) provides detailed guidance on how to produce
a school sex education policy. It has since been revised and updated and
published as Sex and Relationship Education (2001).7
The video ‘Make Love Last’
CARE’s video, Make Love Last, is done in a
contemporary, vox pop style; the main sources of advice are a health education
consultant, Angela Flux, the agony aunt from the magazine Just 17,
Annabel G, and a youth worker, Paul Francis. The ostensible message of
the video is that virginity is a sensible choice, and a number of teenagers
express their desire to remain virgins until marriage.
However, the video contains
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, ‘You 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 ‘stud of the month’ competition, Randy gets a young
man to admit that, in his dreams, he had impregnated the entire female staff of
a nightclub between two and four in the morning. 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.
It’s surprising that CARE thinks it is necessary to use this type of language to
deliver a message to young people.
Another character in the
video, Uncle Roger, shown in black and white, is presented as a rather
ridiculous fuddy-duddy who is supposed to represent traditional old-fashioned
views on sexual behaviour. While traditional views are parodied and ridiculed,
the views of the modern sex educator and the journalist from Just 17 are
presented as authoritative voices that young people should take seriously. They
are presented as experts who know about sex and young people are encouraged to
follow their advice.
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 [my 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 [my italics]’. In other
words, young people are being advised that their decision to have sex or not,
depends on what they want at that moment in time, and not on any objective
standard of right and wrong. The message of the video 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.’8
Lovelife puts it this way: ‘Remember, it’s your body, your choice and
your right to say no. Only have sex because you want to.’9
This video bends over
backwards to appear trendy. But what is the moral message? Does it teach sexual
purity? Certainly not! Young people are left with the impression that coarse
sexual talk is okay. Does it teach chastity? Clearly not! Young people are
advised to say no if they don’t want sex now. The corollary is that young
people who do want sex now should say ‘yes’. So while ostensibly promoting
virginity, young people are left with the impression that abstaining until they
are ready for a sexual experience is a positive choice. The advice offered by
Make Love Last is consistent with the morality of desire discussed in
chapter 2. Moreover, CARE is apparently content for its message on sexual
behaviour to be associated with the magazine Just 17, widely known for
its salacious sexual outlook, despite the biblical injunction: ‘Do not be yoked
together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in
common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?’ (2 Corinthians 6:14).
The course leader’s manual ‘Parents First’
Parents First – Sex Education within the Home (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. The booklet starts by providing a list of
biblical references that describe God’s blueprint for sex and sexuality,
although there is no discussion of the texts. The resource provides a broad
range of activities that will guide parents on how to talk to their children
about sex. CARE warns that while ‘the material is firmly based on Christian
teaching’, the course leader ‘may encounter embarrassment, even hostility at
first and this needs to be anticipated and worked through’.10
According to CARE ground rules for the teaching session should include respect,
non-judgementalism, openness, trust and confidentiality.
CARE claims that discussions
around sexual language are very important. The purpose is for parents to be
aware of the sexual language that their children confront; to feel more
comfortable dealing with sexual language, and to work out what sort of language
they want their children to use. An activity sheet is handed out which requires
parents to categorise a list of sexual words into polite, neutral, clinical and
rude/offensive. For example, the words for sex are: sleep with, making love,
sexual intercourse, and screwing. Other words on the activity sheet are penis,
female genitalia, and oral sex. It is stressed that the parents will not have
to show their completed activity sheet to anyone else or share their words with
the group. If the ‘group is quite comfortable with sexual language, the words
can be anonymously collated on to 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’.11
Apparently CARE feels that it is ‘important’ for Christians to have a vocabulary
of lewd words. But why do these words need to be collated anonymously? Is it
because the offensive words that are generated by this activity might arouse a
sense of shame?
Another activity 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?12
What is so disturbing about the activities described above
is that, in the name of sex education, Christian people are being persuaded to
use lewd words and discuss oral sex in a group situation. CARE would do well to
note Christ’s warning to the Church in Thyatira: ‘I have this against you: You
tolerate that woman Jezebel… by her teaching she misleads my servants into
sexual immorality’ (Revelation 2:20).
Another starter card poses
the problem: ‘Your daughter of 15 says she wants to go on the pill.’ Parents
are asked how they would feel. Disappointed, in that their daughter had let
them down, or pleased that she had come to talk about it? And what would
parents want to talk to their daughter about – the legal situation, their views,
her feelings, the side effects, or her future? Yet another discussion starter
suggests: ‘Your 18-year-old wants his/her partner to be able to share his/her
room at the weekends?’ Parents are asked how they would feel about this. ‘What
would you want to discuss: their sexual relationship; their intentions;
contraception; nothing – it wouldn’t happen; levels of trust; temptation?’13
The emphasis is on parents’ feelings; there is no advice that they should give
their children moral guidance.
And what is CARE’s advice
about same-sex friendships? ‘Close same-sex relationships during early
adolescence can be a time for teenagers to develop the confidence to approach
the other sex; sometimes a relationship or feelings of attraction may develop
with a friend of the same sex and parents need to keep the channels of
communication open if this is the case. Strong messages of disapproval or
concern will not help the situation. How would you feel if a son/daughter of
yours told you they were attracted to people of the same sex? How do you feel
about adults who make different sexual choices from you? Do you have any needs
which are not met by people of the other sex?’14
Note that parents are warned not to show disapproval of same-sex relationships.
Apparently CARE believes that parents should not warn their children of the
moral danger of a homosexual relation-ship, and its spiritual consequences as
taught in the Bible (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10).
Another activity uses the
technique of the values continuum (see page 14 in chapter 2) 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’.15
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
statements. 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’.16
As we saw in chapter 2, 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.
CARE’s response to the Social Exclusion Unit’s
consultation
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 [my italics] for teenagers to be having sex”?’17
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 inter-course 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. All
other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins
against his own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18).
CARE believes that a
partnership with parents is key to the successful delivery of sex education. It
urges that all sex education should be placed within a clear moral and values
framework, that affirms the place of marriage.18
CARE also urges ‘that accurate factual information is given to young people
about sex, unplanned pregnancy, STIs, contraception, abortion, and its effects,
both physical and emotional. We also support programmes that include
self-awareness, self-image, decision-making, and promote emotional literacy.’19
According to CARE,
‘appropriate sex education can take place at school from age 5’.20
‘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.’21
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.’22
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.’23
What outside national organisations does CARE have in mind? And who does 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’?24
We know that the FPA and Brook ‘want to do it’, and we know that a major
activity of the FPA is to train ‘sex educators’. Is CARE supporting the idea
that the sex educators ‘properly’ trained by the FPA should teach children sex
education?
The booklet ‘Your School and Sex Education’ (1996)
CARE’s booklet Your School and Sex Education (1996)
has been written ‘to help teachers, parents and governors who are involved in
discussions about sex education or are concerned with the task of producing,
revising or reviewing a school sex education policy’.25
The document makes it clear that its intention is not to discuss the pros and
cons of the Government’s guidance, only to clarify what schools are required to
do. CARE believes that an important aspect of any school sex education
programme is to make young people aware of the implications of early sexual
intercourse. ‘They need to be equipped with the skills required to make
informed choices… For the medical and social well-being of the students,
abstinence must be presented in a favourable light. Those students who are
already sexually active, should be given the opportunity to consider changing
their behaviour and choosing abstinence.’26
Sex education lessons should provide ‘the opportunities for pupils to consider
abstinence from sexual activities in a positive way, as well as ‘safer sex’
options’.27 So CARE’s philosophy appears
to be similar to that of SIECUS, discussed on page 108. Young people are offered
the choice between sexual abstinence, presented in a favourable light, and
‘safer sex’, and invited to make an informed choice.
In Your School and Sex
Education, CARE provides a list of sex education resources used in schools,
with the qualification that those working in the area of sexual health should
evaluate the value base of the resources which they intend to use. ‘For the
guidance of Christian parents and governors, the resources listed below are some
which are used selectively by Christians working in a wide spectrum of schools
and groups.’ With this qualification, CARE provides a detailed list of sex
education resources. Some are marked with an asterisk to indicate that the
author is working in a specifically Christian moral framework. Useful websites
provided include the Health Education Authority and the Sex Education Forum. In
order to gain an understanding of the type of material that CARE has brought to
the attention of school governors and teachers, I have analysed three examples
from their list.
The resource manual ‘Body of Knowledge’
The first, entitled Body of Knowledge, is described
by CARE as a resource which provides material for training teachers about sex
education in primary schools within a specifically Christian moral framework.28
What should primary school-children be taught about condoms? ‘It would be a
natural progression from discussion about reproduction and lessons in sexual
intercourse to teach that some people use condoms to prevent a pregnancy. Some
simple discussion of other forms of contraception could also be introduced…’29
Contraception should be taught to 9 to 11-year-olds in a context of preventing
pregnancy and reducing infection.30 And
what should children be taught about homosexuality? ‘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.’31
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 [my italics].’32
And if teachers are unclear about policy they should direct questions to the
headteacher, the Family Planning Association or the Sex Education Forum.33
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.34
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.35
It recommends Knowing me, knowing you as a book of practical ideas and
workshops for primary school sex education.
The book ‘Knowing me, knowing you’
The second example, taken from CARE’s list of resources, is
the book Knowing me, knowing you, which is referred to as containing
‘useful material with some excellent activities and worksheets’.36
The book 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.
37 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.38
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 to ‘challenge prejudice and discrimination when it rears its
head in the classroom’.39
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,40
and brainstorm on the reasons why people have sex.41
Another activity assesses
primary schoolchildren’s understanding of sexual penetration—working in pairs
the 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’ [implies
either male or female], if they think they are true. The children are then
asked to compare answers with their partner. Yet another activity offers
children 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?’42
Children are provided with 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 sexually transmitted diseases. Against the condom is the fact that it
is important to put one on before penetration, it must be taken off carefully
and it needs gentle handling.43
The whole class continuum
encourages 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.’44
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’, ‘one in every ten people is
sexually attracted to someone of the same sex’, ‘masturbation is bad for you’,
‘people always have sex in bed’ and ‘for sexual activity, the man has to lie on
top of the woman’. The teacher asks 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. The underlying purpose is to promote the idea that truth and
morality are relative concepts. Knowing me, knowing you is teaching
children that there is no absolute right or wrong, no absolute truth.
Significantly, Knowing me, knowing you is advertised by Brook in its 1991
and 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’
The third example from CARE’s resource list is the book
Sexuality that is endorsed as covering some good ground: ‘body image,
stereotyping, type of relationships, decision-making, feeling good’.45
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.’46 Once again CARE is content to
guide teachers to a sex education book that promotes the FPA and Brook.
CARE and contraception
We have seen that Body of Knowledge teaches that it
would be natural, following discussion about sexual intercourse, to teach
primary schoolchildren aged 9 to 11 that condoms are used to prevent a pregnancy47
and to reduce infections.48 In Your
School and Sex Education, CARE reminds teachers that they ‘are recommended
not to provide individual advice on contraception to those under 16 but there is
nothing in the guidance or legislation to prevent teaching about contraception
within the whole class situation… teachers can provide young people with
information about where confidential advice can be obtained, and as this
information is not regarded as sex education per se, it can be freely
available to all students irrespective of parental wishes regarding sex
education. Doctors and school nurses may be free to give contraceptive advice
to individual pupils if requested by the pupil to do so. This is irrespective
of parental wishes regarding sex education.’49
CARE is simply reminding teachers of the Government’s policy on contraceptives
for under-age children, without any guidance on whether it is consistent with
biblical teaching on sexual behaviour. Indeed, teachers and school governors
are left in the dark as to whether CARE actually supports this policy or not.
CARE’s response to the
Government’s Social Exclusion Unit makes clear its view that there is a role for
centres which offer contraception to young people faced with the possibility of
an unplanned pregnancy. ‘When a young person visits a centre, communication and
discussion with parents either directly or by encouraging the girl to speak to
her parents, is seen as an important part of supporting the girl as she
considers the options open to her. In addition, young people’s advice centres
and specifically dedicated family planning facilities can be effective
especially if young people are given an opportunity to discuss their situation
and decision-making as well as being provided with contraception, if
appropriate.’50
CARE believes ‘that it is not appropriate to make contraception available to
young people in the absence of discussion and advice, so casual distribution of
condoms for example at youth clubs or schools is not acceptable.’51
However, CARE registers no objection to xe "CARE:contraception"contraceptive
clinics for young people, which provide advice on decision making and how to use
contraception, such as those run by Brook and the NHS.
The case against CARE
So we must ask the question: In what way does CARE’s
version of sex education differ from that of the secular sex educators? CARE,
like the FPA and Brook, believes that children should be taught about sex in
primary school, starting at the age of five. CARE, like Brook, recommends
Knowing me, knowing you as a sex education resource for primary
schoolchildren. CARE, like the FPA and Brook, believes that schoolchildren
should be taught a sexual vocabulary. CARE, like the FPA and Brook, believes
that parents should be encouraged to talk to their children about sex. CARE,
like the FPA and Brook, believes that children should be taught the facts about
sexual intercourse, STDs, abortion and contraception. CARE, like the FPA and
Brook, believes that dedicated family planning clinics, which give young people
advice on decision making and how to use contraception, can be effective. CARE,
like Brook and the FPA, has used the teenage magazine Just 17 to promote
its sex education messages. CARE, like the FPA and Brook, promotes moral
relativism.
CARE will undoubtedly protest
that it is different because it promotes sexual abstinence. Indeed it does
promote abstinence, as does the FPA, Brook, the HEA and SIECUS, but it does not
teach chastity. CARE’s video, Make Love Last, tells teenagers to learn
how to say, ‘I don’t want to have sex now [my italics]’. But the FPA,
Brook, the HEA and SIECUS all teach the same message—they all advise young
people to abstain until they are ready to have sex. The comprehensive sex
education promoted by SIECUS teaches that ‘helping adolescents to postpone
sexual intercourse until they are ready for mature relationships is a key
goal of comprehensive sexuality education [my italics]’. Effective sex education
programmes ‘include a strong abstinence message as well as information
about contraception and safer sex [my italics]’.52
So what is different about the abstinence message promoted by SIECUS, and the
abstinence message delivered by CARE?
While CARE promotes the idea
of abstinence, the reason it gives for doing so is because of the potential
health dangers associated with premature sexual activity, not because
promiscuity is wrong. CARE teaches that children ought to make sexual decisions
on the basis of feelings generated by self-esteem, rather than the certainties
taught by biblical morality. Children are advised to make ‘positive’ or
‘healthy’ choices and to avoid ‘unhealthy’ or ‘inappropriate’ relationships.
Parents are advised to consult their ‘feelings’ to understand moral issues, such
as when their daughter wants to go on the pill.
One of the most concerning
aspects of CARE’s approach is its moral relativism—in CARE’s version of sex
education there are no moral absolutes and there is no moral instruction.
In Parents First, CARE’s aim is not to bring parents’ beliefs into
line with biblical teaching, but rather to ‘clarify’ their beliefs. In Body
of Knowledge, teachers are advised to respond to moral questions by telling
children that ‘people have different opinions and have to decide what is
right for themselves’. CARE, like the FPA and Brook, has demoralised sexual
behaviour. Indeed, CARE is promoting an ideology that is indistinguishable from
that of the FPA and Brook. CARE makes no attempt to teach young people about
God’s standard of sexual purity, or the Christian virtues of modesty, chivalry
and chastity.
Christian Institute
The Christian Institute has outlined some of its principles
in A Manifesto for Marriage in Sex Education. It believes that sex
education, ‘if it is done badly, has the potential to provoke a great deal of
parental concern’.53 The Institute sets
out ‘five positive principles for sex education which we would like to see
adopted by all Scottish schools’. The crux of their position is that the
problem with sex education is its insensitive and extreme nature, but,
fortunately, such insensitive sex education is relatively rare. ‘Sex education
in most Scottish schools is not extreme. Let’s keep it that way. The problem
comes from outside: outside groups which take lessons in schools, overzealous
health board officials or politically correct education authorities. It is
essential that teachers and parents retain control over sex education.’54
According to the manifesto, sex education should upgrade the importance of
marriage and support family values and not undermine the home.55
Children should be taught that sex is for adults. ‘Sex is special. It involves
a degree of commitment and intimacy which is entirely wrong for children to
engage in. It may result in damaging sexually transmitted diseases, or
pregnancy. Children cannot cope with these things. They should be taught what
the real risks are… When it comes to deciding how to teach about sex in schools,
we must be prepared to look at what works… Schools should promote sexual
abstinence. They should teach young people to say no to sex.’56
The Institute believes that children’s innocence should be protected. ‘It’s
time for modesty in sex education. Parents fear that certain approaches to sex
education take away children’s innocence. Children do not have to be presented
with a smorgasbord of sexual activities in order to be prepared for adulthood.
They need to be taught modesty, morality and self-restraint.’57
Another publication by the
Institute, Sex Lessons for Kids, has drawn attention to the appalling
nature of the materials being used for sex education in Scottish schools. The
main thrust of this booklet is that sex education should use more appropriate
materials. The Institute also sees the need in the UK for programmes that teach
the message of sexual abstinence, emphasising that sex is meant for marriage,
such as are currently being used in the USA. Short of that, the Institute will
continue to oppose any attempts to liberalise the sex education that is being
taught in schools.
The Institute is right in its
campaign to expose the excesses of sex education. It is also right in pointing
out the importance of modesty, and that children do not need to be taught about
sexual activity. However, the Institute needs to be aware that the ‘abstinence’
message is open to interpretation. As we have seen, those who promote
comprehensive sex education teach abstinence as a pragmatic choice, motivated by
what’s best for me. Furthermore, many abstinence programmes use self-esteem
techniques to help young people make positive, healthy sexual choices.
Chastity is completely
different—it’s a choice based on obedience to God’s moral law, motivated by a
desire to do what is right in God’s eyes and a desire for sexual purity. There
is a world of difference between the pragmatic, amoral advice offered by
abstinence education and the Bible’s teaching on chastity.
The failure of Christian sex education
We have seen that the so-called ‘Christian’ version of sex
education delivered by CARE is inconsistent with biblical morality. So can sex
education be improved? The answer must be a resounding no! And this is because
the concept of sex education, which has flowed from the ideology of the sexual
revolution, is fundamentally hostile to biblical morality. It follows that all
attempts to find the elusive, sensitive ‘Christian’ version are doomed to
failure, for there is no such thing. Sex education is an ideological weapon of
the sexual revolutionaries and should be exposed for the moral evil that it is.
In my view it is imperative for Christians to oppose sex education on moral
grounds—the reason sex education is so wrong is that it is contrary to the moral
teaching of the Bible. The Christian position is for parents to teach their
children about sexual conduct within the framework of God’s moral law, and this
includes the virtues of modesty, chivalry and chastity.
Return to
top of page
Endnotes
1 David Clyde Jones, Biblical Christian
Ethics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, p109
2 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology,
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979, pp614-15
3 Your School and Sex Education,
CARE, 1996, p3
4 A Manifesto for Marriage in Sex
Education, Christian Institute, Scotland, March 2001
5 Teenage Parenthood Response,
Maranatha, 12 November 1998, question 9
6 Maranatha submission to the Health
Committee at the House of Commons, The National Strategy for Sexual Health
and HIV, 3 June 2002, (personal communication)
7 Sex and Relationship Education,
CARE for Education, 2001.
8 One love, Health Education
Authority, 1998
9 Lovelife, Health Education
Authority, 1999, p4
10 Parents First – Sex Education within
the Home, CARE, 1995, p5
11 Ibid. p35
12 Ibid. pp63-64
13 Ibid. pp 63-64
14 Ibid. p64
15 Ibid. p46
16 Ibid. p48
17 Teenage parenthood, A submission
to the Social Exclusion Unit, CARE, November 1998, p5
18 Ibid. p6
19 Ibid. p7
20 Ibid. p9
21 Ibid. p9
22 Ibid. p10
23 Ibid. p15
24 Ibid. p8
25 Ibid. Your School and Sex Education,
CARE, p3
26 Ibid. p26
27 Ibid. p28
28 Ibid. p43
29 Angela Flux, Body of Knowledge, A
report of Sex Education Workshop 1994, p10
30 Ibid. Appendix 9
31 Ibid. p10
32 Ibid. p12
33 Ibid. p12
34 Ibid. Resource 15, resources
35 Ibid. Resource 16, useful addresses
36 Ibid. Your School and Sex Education,
CARE, p43
37 Pete Sanders and Liz Swinden, Knowing
me, knowing you, LDA, 1990, p4
38 Ibid. p26
39 Ibid. p154
40 Ibid. p111
41 Ibid. p152
42 Ibid. pp168-69
43 Ibid. p182
44 Ibid. p191
45 Ibid. Your School and Sex Education,
CARE, p41
46 Gay Gray, Heather Hyde, Sexuality,
Oxford University Press, p22
47 Ibid. Body of Knowledge, p10
48 Ibid. Appendix 9
49 Ibid. Your School and Sex Education,
CARE, p12
50 Ibid. Teenage parenthood, A
submission to the Social Exclusion Unit, CARE, pp15-16
51 Ibid. p16
52 SIECUS, Adolescence and Abstinence Fact
Sheet, published in SIECUS Report, vol. 26, no.1, November 1997
53 A Manifesto for Marriage in Sex
Education, The Christian Institute, March 2001, p2
54 Ibid. p6
55 Ibid. p8
56 Ibid. pp10-11
57 Ibid. p12
|