A great moral evil
The demoralisation of sexual conduct; the fallacies behind
sex education; parental responsibility
Chapter 20 from Lessons in Depravity
The story of sex education is a story that must put fear
into the hearts of most parents. From the evidence that we have uncovered in
this book it is clear that sex education is being used as a medium for
communicating the amoral ideology of the sexual revolution. Slowly but surely
the idea is taking root among children and young people that they can do
whatever appears to be right in their own eyes—that they can even set their own
standards of sexual behaviour. Many are being persuaded that they are entitled
to make informed decisions to have sex when they want to, when they feel ready,
provided they practise ‘safer sex’. According to Melanie Phillips, children are
being treated as mini-adults. ‘Not only parents but the State now refuses to
treat children as the immature, uninformed individuals they are, requiring the
effort of protection and guidance. Instead, through sex education in schools it
[the State] equips them for the sexual marketplace—and congratulates itself for
its “responsibility” as it dishes out condoms to under-age youngsters. The
result is that sex has become a recreational sport for children just as it is
for adults, with shocking and shameful results.’1
As a consequence, many children are experiencing all the physical, emotional and
spiritual problems associated with sexual promiscuity. Teenage sexual tragedies
are now commonplace, and many young lives are being shattered by the dreadful
consequences associated with sexual immorality. Indeed, a national screening
pilot for chlamydia (a sexually transmitted disease associated with infertility)
has found that 13.8 per cent of under-16s who attend contraceptive services for
young people are infected with this unpleasant disease.2
In view of these dangers, no
parent can stand back and leave the moral education of their children in the
hands of the sex educators; to do so is tantamount to child neglect. Parents
must take the lead in the moral instruction of their children. In this chapter
I summarise the case against sex education and offer a Christian alternative.
The demoralisation of sexual behaviour
A theme that runs through this book is that the underlying
objective of the sexual revolution is the demoralisation of sexual behaviour.
The anti-Christian position of the revolutionaries is obvious, and they do not
try to hide their hatred of traditional Christian morality, which in their minds
is the major factor responsible for sexual repression. The sex educators, on
the other hand, as the propagandists of the revolution, have been careful about
revealing their hostility, for they realise that the population at large is
still sympathetic to traditional morality. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim of
the sex educators and the sexual revolutionaries is the same—to create a world
free from moral restraint; a world liberated from the sexual repression of the
Victorians; a world in which all people are free to indulge their sexual
desires. In his book How Now Shall we Live? Charles Colson explains that
‘the founders of sex education never did seek simply to transmit a collection of
facts about how our bodies work. Rather, they were evangelists for a utopian
worldview, a religion, in which a “scientific” understanding of sexuality is the
means for transforming human nature, freeing it from the constraints of morality
and ushering in an ideal society.’3
While the sex educators are
careful not to appear to be openly hostile
to Christian morality, they have used a number of subtle ploys to undermine it.
The first was to promote the idea that sex education should be value-free and
non-judgemental. The underlying agenda was to exclude ‘judgemental’ teachings
that condemned certain sexual practices as immoral. But when it dawned that
value-free sex education meant, in fact, amoral sex education, most people did
not want that for their children.
The next approach was to say
that sex education should be taught in a
‘positive’ moral framework, without specifying what that moral framework should
be. This deceived many people, for they automatically assumed that in Great
Britain this would mean a Christian moral framework. But the sex educators had
other ideas. They had no intention of promoting biblical morality; instead,
they used the technique of values
clarification to disparage traditional morality. This technique is subtle in
that it encourages children to challenge the fundamentals of the moral framework
that they have been taught by their parents. Everything a child has been taught
about sexual conduct, family and parents is taken apart and ‘clarified’. In
this way doubt is cast on traditional 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. And because values
clarification is done in a classroom situation there is peer pressure on a child
to conform to the ideas of the group. The fundamental assumption underlying
values clarification is not a neutral point of view but rather a view that
actively supports moral relativism.
Another method of
demoralising sexual conduct is the appeal to self-esteem. Children are invited to make
‘positive’ (not moral) decisions about their sexual relationships on the basis
of their feelings. Sex educators claim that the subjective feelings of children
are the source of ‘healthy’ sexual decisions. The appeal to self-esteem
discourages the use of judgemental messages that condemn certain behaviours,
such as promiscuity. Many New Age techniques are used to engender feelings of
positive self-esteem.
The final amoral approach has
been to develop a so-called ‘Christian’
version of sex education that promotes abstinence as a ‘healthy’ and ‘positive’
choice. In the previous chapter we saw that while the ‘Christian’ version of
sex education aims to present abstinence in a favourable light, and so delay the
onset of sexual intercourse, its reasons for doing so are pragmatic, and it does
not teach the importance of sexual purity, the virtue of chastity, or the
discipline of self-control. Although the teaching of abstinence has the
appearance of being Christian, its basic message is amoral.
What all these approaches
have in common is the absence of any sense of distinguishing right from wrong.
Instead of a moral decision to remain chaste, children are encouraged to make a
‘positive’, ‘appropriate’ or ‘healthy’ choice not to have sex until they are
ready. Children are encouraged to develop their own standards of sexual
conduct using the techniques of values clarification and self-esteem. Young
people are free to decide for themselves what they want, free to make an
'informed’ decision to ‘have sex’ or not, free from the influence of
‘moralisers’, free from the teachings of the Bible, and free from the traditions
of their family and community.
The document produced by the
Social Exclusion Unit, Teenage
Pregnancy, while encouraging values
clarification and self-esteem, warns against the serious error of ‘moralising’.
It claims that preaching at children ‘makes it less likely they’ll make the
right decision’.4
Any attempt to introduce a moral dimension into sex education is portrayed as
unhelpful. It is interesting to note the negative connotation the Government
attaches to the ‘moralisers’. They are simply dismissed as bigots who threaten
children by their strict, judgemental and unreasonable rules. Consequently, the
model of sex education that is being promoted in our schools takes no account of
the moral teaching of the Bible. What is so disturbing about the Government’s
advice is that it coincides exactly with the policy of the International Planned Parenthood Federation,
namely, that all moral discussions of sexual behaviour should be avoided. The
British Government, the IPPF, the FPA, Brook and CARE all teach sex education in
a framework that is either indifferent to, or ignores, biblical morality.
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 sexually
transmitted disease, and provided that these problems can be avoided by
contraception, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with teenagers having sex
before marriage. So the promiscuous young girl, who manages to avoid becoming
pregnant by using contraception, is considered to be acting ‘responsibly’.
Demoralising sexual conduct allows children to be taught anything—there are no
boundaries. Consequently, explicit sexual images and lewd language, which would
usually be regarded as obscene and pornographic, are justified in the name of
sex education.
The amorality of pro-choice dogma – making ‘informed’
choices
Having demoralised sexual conduct, sex education is now in
a position to invite children to make an 'informed’ decision about whether they
should have sex or not. An example of ‘pro-choice’ sex education is the
Northern Ireland programme, Love for Life, which encourages teenagers to
make ‘informed choices’ with regard to their sexual conduct on the basis of
factual information and positive self-esteem.5
Two options are set before children—to delay the onset of sexual intercourse or
to practise ‘safer sex’. Because this is seen as a difficult choice, sex
education helps by providing teenagers with the information they need to make an
‘informed’ decision. In support of the one option, children are given
information about sexual intercourse, the importance of being in a stable
relationship and the ability to access contraception. In support of the other
option, children are provided with information about the failure rates of
contraceptives and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. On the basis
of the factual information provided, children are in a position to weigh up the
pros and cons, and then to make an ‘informed’ decision about which option
appeals to them most.
We have seen that sex
education offers those young women who become pregnant the option of an
abortion. For example, Lovelife (HEA) says: ‘If you or your partner are
pregnant, take time to think about what you want to do. You will have to decide
if you are going to carry on with the pregnancy or not.’6
CARE’s pamphlet, Making a Decision,
which helps a woman make an ‘informed’ choice whether or not to have an
abortion, provides a good example of pro-choice dogma. 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.’7
Note the elements of ‘pro-choice’ dogma. First, the issue is demoralised; as
there is no right or wrong, abortion and parenting are presented as moral
equivalents. Pro-choice propaganda encourages a woman to believe that her
informed decision 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. She is persuaded to do what she believes to be right in her own
eyes—it is her own decision, she decides for herself what is right.
So we see that
‘pro-choice’
dogma is an essential element of sex education. It sets before children the
proposition that delaying the onset of sexual intercourse, and making an
‘informed’ choice to have sex, are moral equivalents. Both options are open to
a girl, and the choice she makes is not really important—as the HEA puts it: ‘If
you’ve decided you’re not ready for sex, then fine.’8
What is important is that a girl makes her own decision, not influenced
by anybody else, and especially not by the negative ‘thou shalt nots’ of the
Bible or the traditional views of her parents. The girl who chooses to ‘have
sex’ is described as having made a ‘responsible choice’ provided she uses
contraception. Sex education even offers to help those who choose to ‘have sex’
by teaching them how to negotiate ‘safer sex’ with a partner. And those who
choose not to have sex are reassured that they can always change their mind when
they meet the right person or when they feel ready for sex. And if they become
pregnant, sex education offers to help them make an informed decision whether or not to have an
abortion.
To offer children the option
of having sex, without warning that promiscuity is against the moral law of God,
is leading them into the path of temptation. To place before children the
choice of sexual intercourse, 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 provide this type of advice 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).
Christian teaching about
sexual conduct is completely different. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that
human sexual behaviour is subject to the moral law of God. And God’s law
demands sexual purity, decency and self-control. Sexual conduct is so
inextricably linked to inner beliefs that the physical aspect of sex can never
be divorced from the moral dimension. Jesus taught that the outward, physical
manifestations of sexual behaviour are always a manifestation of the inner
self. ‘For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual
immorality…’ (Mark 7:21). Any attempt to teach about sexual conduct in a moral
vacuum is to promote amorality, which
always leads to sexual immorality. The God of the Bible demands that his people
control their bodies ‘in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate
lust like the heathen, who do not know God’ (1 Thessalonians 4:4-5). The New
Testament warns that we should ‘flee from sexual immorality’ (1 Corinthians
6:18).
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. Although these organisations are ideologically committed to the
revolution they do not openly declare their intentions. Instead, they achieve
their objective by means of a propaganda war—the main vehicle for their
indoctrination is ‘sex education’.
One of the most common of
propaganda devices is the use of virtuous
words. By this device the 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 for most people. Notice the incredible irony that the
unmarried teenager who uses contraceptives to avoid becoming pregnant is said to
be practising ‘family’ planning. What she is doing is trying to avoid
becoming a mother. Anyone who has read Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four
will recall the term ‘newspeak’. Orwell shows how in ‘newspeak’ words are
subtly manipulated to mean whatever the movement wants them to mean, so that the
usual meaning no longer applies. The word ‘family’ as used by the FPA is an
example of ‘newspeak’. 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 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.
Notice the subtle use of
words. Most sex education literature refers to ‘sex’ in a way that makes no
distinction between the legitimate sexual expression of husband and wife and
immoral sexual activity based in lust. The inference is that ‘having sex’ is a
morally neutral activity. Now turn to the word ‘education’. In propaganda
terms, ‘education’, like ‘motherhood’ is a virtuous word. The psychological
effect of the word is irresistible. So with little thought or understanding
everybody is in favour of sex ‘education’. When the sexual revolutionaries
coined the term ‘sex education’ they had virtually won the propaganda war at a
stroke. So powerful is the propaganda effect of the term ‘sex education’ that
there is almost no defence and most people are seduced. Consequently, most
parents want their children to gain the benefits of ‘sex education’. For anyone
to argue that ‘sex education’ is not necessary, or even harmful, is regarded as
ridiculous. And so the term ‘sex education’ has been used to legitimise the
mass indoctrination of children with the ideas of the sexual revolution.
Another favourable word which
permeates sex education is ‘safe’. Having sex using condoms is referred to as
‘safer’ sex. Of course, the propagandist seldom mentions that condoms fail, nor
that the only really safe sex takes place in a faithful marriage. For a young
woman to carry condoms in her handbag is referred to as ‘being prepared’, and
those who use contraceptives are said to be ‘responsible’, for they are
promoting their sexual ‘health’.
Conversely, sex educators
attach pejorative words to the ideals that they want us to condemn and reject.
Therefore traditional Christian moral teaching is referred to as ‘repressive’
and ‘old-fashioned’. Those who teach sexual restraint are called ‘moralisers’;
those who promote biblical morality are ‘preachers’ and those who teach that the
Bible condemns promiscuity are ‘judgemental’. The moral law of God is parodied
as a list of ‘thou shalt nots’. Those who practise sexual restraint are
‘prudes’. In this way the propagandist labels biblical morality with pejorative
words, persuading people to reject it without further thought.
In her article ‘Bonking for
beginners’ Patricia Morgan argues that sex
education is not intellectual or academic, but ideological, in that it corrupts
children and makes them ungovernable. She writes that ‘never before have
children been exposed to so much sex so soon… Sex education exponents and
practitioners are not social and medical researchers, or child development
specialists. They are lobbyists or public and private entrepreneurs, out to
sell and extend the freedom of the sexual revolution and promote “alternatives”
to the much despised family. Ads, clothes and pin-ups aside, what goes on in
the sex education manuals and the glossy “puberty press” is identical.’9
Patricia Morgan is developing the argument that sex education is simply another
branch of the sexual revolution that is hiding behind the euphemism ‘sex
education’.
The false presuppositions of sex education
Sex education propaganda is 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 promiscuous, ignorant
children need to be educated in the skills of ‘safer sex’ to avoid sexual
tragedies.
The fallacy that sexual promiscuity is natural
Sex education makes the assumption that it is natural for
children to be sexually promiscuous. Because ‘having sex’ is so much fun, such
a source of physical pleasure, it is ridiculous to think that children will deny
themselves. It’s common sense that most children will indulge in sex the moment
they pass through puberty, and anybody who thinks otherwise is not living in the
real world. Consistent with their amoral approach, sex educators promote the
idea that children, like rabbits, are likely to copulate the moment they become
sexually mature, and so the issue is simply to prevent them from becoming
pregnant. According to one social commentator, ‘Sex has become a pastime like
skiing, with children being told how to improve their technique while making
sure they avoid any nasty accidents. So Boots is opening a drop-in clinic where
children and others can get free contraceptives. It is so easy: just remember
to add condoms to lip salve and Elastoplast.’10
Because the message of sex education is ‘non-judgemental’, promiscuity is not to
be condemned.
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. 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 sex’ outside of marriage. 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 innate fear acts as a natural restraint against promiscuous sex. However,
it is not only the fear of pregnancy that acts as a 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.
Even those who do not know
the basics of biblical morality know in their inner self that there is a right
way of behaving, since the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,
and their consciences bear witness to God’s moral law (Romans 2:15). They know in their
heart of hearts that promiscuity is wrong, and those who ignore the warnings of
their consciences feel shame and guilt. This is why children are too ashamed to
let their parents know that they are getting a supply of condoms from the local
clinic. This is why clinics that treat sexually transmitted infections are
clouded in secrecy. Most children know that sexual immorality is wrong and that it has
serious consequences. Despite the propaganda of sex education, most children
remain chaste and do not quickly give way to their sexual desires.
The fallacy of sexual ignorance
Throughout this book we have seen the claim 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, sexually transmitted diseases, what to
expect in relationships and what it means to be a parent’.11
The Teenage Pregnancy report asserts that ‘young people are frequently
ignorant or misinformed about sex… certainly the huge number of calls to
helplines like Sexwise and the enduring popularity of problem pages in teen
magazines points to a great unmet need among teenagers for basic, factual
information about sex’.12 Steve Chalke,
the author of The Parentalk Guide to Your Child and Sex, agrees: ‘The
truth is, your child’s innocence is far more likely to be protected if
the time bomb of their ignorance is removed.’13
The sex educators use this assumption of ignorance as a pretext for teaching
children a large number of sexual facts, with the assertion that children
must be taught the ‘truth’. According to a SIECUS sex education guide, the
acceptance of ‘truth’ as a core value implies that all sex practices should ‘be
described as objectively and scientifically as possible, whether or not the
results conformed to the official mores or to a particular social code’.14
So the sex educators have
taken to themselves the right to teach children a catalogue of sexual facts. The
booklet Sex Education: The Erroneous Zone contends that children should
be taught a vast range of facts
about sex.
The sex manual, Make it Happy,
provides teenagers with an encyclopaedic knowledge of sex, including facts about
the sexual organs, masturbation and incest. CARE promotes the idea that young
people should be given accurate factual information about sex, unplanned
pregnancy, STIs, contraception, abortion and its effects, both physical and
emotional.15
Here it is necessary to make
a distinction between facts and truth, for facts are not truth. Whereas facts
can be used to corrupt and deprave, truth always has a moral dimension and never
corrupts. Truth is based in God’s word: ‘I, the Lord, speak the truth; I
declare what is right’ (Isaiah 45:19). And Jesus, in his high priestly prayer
to his Father, declared: ‘Your word is truth’ (John 17:17). God’s truth always
promotes sexual morality and that which is decent, pure and right; facts, on the
other hand, contain no moral dimension and may be used, and are used, to promote
sexual immorality. So facts about sex, without the moral implications that flow
from those facts, do not constitute truth, and may be a pathway to sexual
temptation. The Bible encourages Christians to think about whatever is true,
noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Philippians
4:8).
So why do innocent children
need to be taught sexual facts that would not ordinarily enter their minds? The
facts that children are being taught about contraception do not represent
truth—the truth is that children who remain chaste do not need contraception.
The facts that children are being taught about sexually transmitted
diseases are not truth—the truth is that these unpleasant diseases are the
consequence of sexual immorality. Chaste
children gain no benefit from having the facts about pubic lice,
gonorrhoea and genital warts forced on them. The facts that children are
taught about sexual orientation are not truth—the truth is that homosexuality is
a perversion, and children gain no benefit whatsoever from being taught the
facts about sexual perversions.
While sex education gives
children facts about sex, it does not tell them the truth about God’s
standard of sexual behaviour and the consequences that flow from rejecting God’s
moral law. The sexual facts imparted by sex education are designed to
undermine sexual purity and invite lustful thoughts. The facts compel
children to turn their innocent minds to sexual matters, to focus on sex, to
think about that which is immoral, unclean, depraved and perverted. The real
purpose of the facts,
so beloved by the sex educators, is to promote pornographic ideas and images,
gradually introducing children into the perverted, sex-obsessed mindset of the
sexual revolutionaries. The unsolicited facts of the sex educator invade
the innocence of childhood, and what is so shocking is that schoolchildren are a
captive audience who have no way of escaping the deluge of facts thrust on them
in the name of sex education.
Sex education claims that
another major cause of sexual ignorance is
the failure of parents to educate their children about sex. According to sex
educators, ‘many parents cannot, will not, or simply do not educate their
children explicitly about sex’,16
and research shows that the majority of parents find it difficult to give sex
education to their teenage children.17
Because the vast majority of parents do
not discuss sex with their children, they are seen as a part of the problem—they
are simply too ignorant, too embarrassed or too lazy to teach their children
about sex.
The usual explanation for
this failure is that parents and children find it embarrassing to discuss sex
with each other. Even those parents who have cared for their children in the
most intimate way, who read the Bible to their children, who talk to their
children about every subject under the sun, including moral issues, find it
embarrassing to discuss sex with their children. The experience of xe "Clare,
Anthony"Anthony Clare, the well-known
psychiatrist, is probably typical of most parents. He explains the reserve felt
by both parents and children when it comes to sexual matters. ‘My adolescent
offspring, and I do not believe that they are in this regard atypical, value
their privacy. They do not want uninvited information to be thrust upon them.
While they are not adults, they are not children either, and didactic,
heart-to-heart exchanges are more the stuff of rather po-faced educational
material than the real life cut and thrust of parent-adolescent relationships.’18
And this is a psychiatrist, trained in medicine, who knows the details of sexual
anatomy and is an expert in the behavioural sciences, who feels that it is
unnatural to speak to his children about sexual matters. The reason is an
instinctive reluctance to intrude into the private life of his
children.
If children really benefit
from sex education, as the sex educators tell us, and if parents do not give
children this type of education, then it follows that others need to take on the
task. Because parents are failing in their duty, sex educators have taken on
the responsibility of providing children with the knowledge they need to
practise ‘safer sex’. On the pretext of overcoming sexual ignorance, sex
educators teach children a vocabulary of sexual words, show them explicit
images, educate them about sexually transmitted diseases and techniques for
unrolling condoms, and train them to make ‘positive’, ‘healthy’, ‘informed’
sexual decisions. But there is something wrong here. We know that the Bible
teaches that parents are responsible for the moral instruction and discipline of
their children. God commands his people to teach their children about his
laws. It is the responsibility of parents to ‘train a child in the way he
should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it’ (Proverbs 22:6), and
fathers are to bring up their children ‘in the training and instruction of the
Lord’ (Ephesians 6:4). It follows that it must be wrong for parents to hand the
moral instruction of their children over to the sex educators. Does this mean
that parents should overcome their innate
embarrassment in order to teach their children the large body of factual
knowledge suggested by the sex educators? Or is the assumption that children
need a large body of factual knowledge to make informed sexual choices
fundamentally wrong?
Yes indeed! The reason that
parents find it so embarrassing to talk about sexual matters with their children
is that it is unnatural and wrong for them to do such a thing. How many good
parents do you know who talk to their children about sex? What seems remarkable
is that among the finest, most devoted parents almost none discuss sex with
their children in the way suggested by the sex educators. Even among Christian
parents who pray daily for their children’s spiritual welfare, who take the
keenest interest in teaching their children the Christian gospel and are willing
to make considerable personal sacrifices for their moral well-being, there is no
sex education of the kind advocated by the sex education movement. Why is this
so? Why do the most devoted, good parents, who really love and nurture their
children, not spend time teaching them about sex? Are these parents, as
suggested by sex education, failing their children? Does this mean that
Christian parents who do not talk to their children about sex are failing in
their duty? And are children being deprived because their parents are not
educating them about condoms?
Of course not! The incessant
clamour that children must be ‘educated’ about sex comes from the sexual
revolution, not from the Bible. It was the Bloomsbury Set who talked
incessantly about sex; it was Sigmund Freud, Marie Stopes, Margaret Sanger and
Alfred Kinsey who were obsessed with sex. And the sex education movement, as the
propaganda arm of the sexual revolution, has been enormously successful in
persuading society of the benefits of ‘educating’ children about sex. So we see
that the idea that children need to be ‘educated’ about sex flows from the
sexual revolution—and nobody it appears, not even the Christian Church, has
challenged this proposition.
The fallacy of ‘safer sex’
A major assumption of sex education is that contraception
prevents sexual tragedies. We have repeatedly heard the mantra—contraception
reduces the rate of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted
diseases. Remember the Government’s guidance to schools, discussed in chapter
1. ‘Knowledge of the different types of contraception, and of access to, and
availability of contraception is a major part of the Government’s strategy to
reduce teenage pregnancy.’ The Government emphasises that ‘trained staff in
secondary schools should be able to give young people full information about
different types of contraception, including emergency contraception and their
effectiveness’.19 Steve Chalke is a keen
supporter of the Government’s policy on contraception. He writes that a wise
parent presents ‘the facts about the various different types of contraception
available – and why they could be a real lifesaver – alongside moral, social and
emotional arguments as to where, when, how, why and with whom sex can best be
enjoyed. This way your child will begin to understand how contraception fits
into the overall picture of their sexuality before making their own informed –
and hopefully wise – decisions.’20
Current orthodoxy holds that
a comprehensive programme of sex education, sensitively and well taught, and
backed up by a well-organised family planning service, which makes
contraceptives freely available to children, will reduce the frequency of
untoward accidents among sexually active teenagers. Three decades ago Lord
Avebury argued in the House of Lords (1973) that if there was an efficient and
comprehensive family planning service, the abortion figures would decline and
sexual tragedies would no longer take place.21
In a letter to The Times the chairman of Brook argued that under-age
children must be supplied with contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.22
It was on the strength of such arguments that in 1974 contraceptives were made
freely available to children on the NHS. Access to contraception was considered
to be so important for protecting children that the Government made it lawful
for doctors to prescribe contraceptives to under-age children without the
knowledge or consent of their parents. One result of this policy is that more
and more children are using contraceptives, and in the year 2001, 80 thousand
under-age children attended family planning clinics for the first time.
It is not widely known that
contraceptives are associated with significant failure rates—so the more
sexually active teenagers there are, the more who will experience a sexual
tragedy. Few people realise that most children who become pregnant have been
using contraception. For example, a study of 147 teenagers with unplanned
pregnancies found that 80 per cent claimed to have been using contraception at
the time of conception.23
As we saw in chapter 1, recent research of teenage pregnancies in general
practice shows that most teenagers who became pregnant had discussed
contraception (71 per cent) in the year before conception. Moreover, as this
research was based solely on GP records and did not take account of
contraception provided by family planning clinics, it certainly underestimates
the total provision of contraception to teenagers who become pregnant.24
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 prevent 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.25
While it is not possible to say that there is a causal link, 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.’26
An epidemiological assessment
of family planning, sponsored by the Department of Health, provides information
on the percentage of women who become pregnant in the year of using different
contraceptive methods. The failure rate
for condoms is estimated to be between 10 and 19 per cent, and for oral
contraceptives between 4 and 9 per cent. And failure rates among teenagers are
considerably higher.27
This means that one in five young women who depend upon condoms for
contraception are at risk of pregnancy during each year of sexual activity.
Clearly, contraception does not provide foolproof protection against pregnancy.
This means that the Government’s policy of promoting contraception among
children, discussed in chapter 1, will inevitably result in a high teenage
pregnancy rate, such as we have at present in the UK.
So children are being misled
into believing that they can become sexually active without any adverse
consequences provided they practise ‘safer sex’. We now have a remarkable
paradox—despite a massive nationwide campaign promoting contraceptives over the
last three decades, the problems that sex education claimed it would solve have
actually got worse. The claim that contraception prevents sexual tragedies is
false and the reason is not difficult to understand. Providing children with
contraception is an open invitation to engage in sexual intercourse without any
apparent danger, an invitation to enjoy ‘safer sex’. By removing the fear of
pregnancy, one of the natural factors that inhibit sexual intercourse is also
removed. Consequently, many young women, believing themselves to be safe from
pregnancy, are recruited into a life of sexual promiscuity. Moreover, the fact
that the Government provides contraception for children, creates an impression
in their young minds that it cannot be wrong for them to use contraceptives.
Hundreds of thousands
of children who have suffered the emotional trauma and moral guilt associated
with sexual promiscuity can testify to the fact that the ‘safer sex’ message is
dishonest, misleading and cruel, for it hurts young people, especially young
girls, who often feel that they have been used as a sex object. Those girls
enticed into promiscuity by the ‘safer sex’ message find that they have entered
not into a world of sexual fun, as promised by the sex educators, but into the
dark world of sexual immorality, characterised by anxiety, insecurity, and
fear. Amoral sex education, of course, does not acknowledge the existence of
sexual immorality and glosses over the moral devastation that results from its
teaching. The Bible, however, warns that sexual immorality has serious
spiritual consequences. While ‘safer sex’ may prevent some of the physical
consequences, some of the time, it cannot protect against the spiritual and
moral harm that flows from disobeying God’s moral law. The terrible truth is
that sexual immorality has consequences. ‘Do not be deceived: God cannot be
mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful
nature, from that nature will reap destruction…’ (Galatians 6:7,8). Sadly, sex
outside marriage has serious consequences—the worry of resorting to emergency
contraception, the pain and guilt of abortion, the shame of sexually transmitted
disease, the deception of parents, the sadness of broken promises, children
without fathers, to mention some of the more obvious.
Parental responsibility
We have seen the overwhelming case against sex education.
We have seen that it has demoralised sexual conduct. We have seen that the
whole edifice is based on false assumptions. How then should parents respond?
It is the responsibility of
all parents, Christian and non-Christian alike, to teach their children a moral
framework on which to base their lives, and this is especially true when it
comes to sexual conduct. God reminded his people that his laws were righteous
and good. ‘These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your
hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home
and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up… Teach
them to your children and to their children after them’ (Deuteronomy 6: 6-7,
4:9). Children need both formal instruction and to learn from the example of
their parents. The home environment becomes a means of bringing children up in
the training and instruction of the Lord.
Parents, therefore, should
make a definite decision to teach their
children the moral law of God contained in the Bible. (Even among parents who
are not practising Christians, many still want their children to be taught the
basics of biblical morality.) Parents should teach Jesus’ standard of sexual
purity and the importance of the biblical virtues of modesty and chivalry.
Children should be taught the value of
self-control, chastity and fidelity, and about the meaning and purpose of
marriage and the family. The first nine chapters of Proverbs can be used to
teach children the value of wisdom and discipline, and to warn young people of
the dangers of sexual immorality. The book of Titus can be used to teach
children the great value of self-control and the importance of saying no to
ungodliness and worldly passions (Titus 2). Parents can show their children
that the Bible condemns sexual impurity, fornication, adultery, incest,
homosexuality, filthy language and coarse joking. Those children who have been
taught about chastity and self-control gain no benefit from being told about
contraceptive techniques and how to ‘be prepared’ for sex. Those children who
understand Jesus’ standard of sexual
purity will regard the explicit sexual images of sex education as pornographic,
and will object to being taught a vocabulary of indecent words. Having learned
the biblical principles of sexual morality, children do not need to know the
facts about ‘safer sex’ or the details of sexually transmitted diseases.
When it comes to sexual
behaviour, a wise parent recognises that God has given children a time of
innocence during which they should be taught the difference between right and
wrong. Slowly, as they mature, children learn to understand the mystery of
their sexual nature. They absorb the differences between male and female by
living with their parents and siblings in a family. As they observe the
different roles of their father and mother in everyday family life, they slowly
discern the differences in behaviour and dress, and the way their father and
mother relate to each other. They see that their father and mother love each
other, share a bed together, and sleep together. The family situation with
parents, brothers and sisters feels secure, natural and right and gives a great
sense of belonging. As children slowly mature into adolescence they have the
model of their parents and family as an example. They hear the way members of
the family speak to each other and soon realise that explicit, foul, obscene
language has no place in the family situation. And children that grow up in a
home where their father and mother love and respect each other, see a model of
what marriage and family relationships should be and come to understand the
importance of faithfulness in a sexual relationship.
Because sexuality is a part
of human nature, as children grow older and pass through puberty it is natural
for them gradually to understand how their body functions. As they become aware
of their sexual nature, they should do so in accordance with the moral standards
that they have learned from their parents. They develop moral beliefs about
sexual conduct in the context of their parents’ marriage, the standards implicit
within their family, and from the message of the Bible. As they grow into
adolescence they do not need to be taught about sexual techniques and condoms,
for they have already learnt that certain forms of behaviour, such as sexual
promiscuity, are plainly wrong. They also know that such behaviour would cause
deep distress to their parents and family.
It is natural for a mother to
prepare her daughter for womanhood and menstruation. It is also natural for
parents to answer the questions that their children ask about sex in an honest
and thoughtful way, taking account of the child’s age. Wise parents stress the
importance of sexual purity and advise their children to behave with decency in
their friendships with members of the opposite sex. But just as parents do not
need to teach children how to walk or talk, for they learn these skills
naturally as they grow older, so they do not need to teach children the details
of sexual physiology, for children come to understand their sexual nature as
they mature into adulthood. By observing their parents, children learn the
cardinal sexual virtues of modesty and chivalry. Daughters learn from their
mothers to dress and behave with modesty, and not to encourage sexual advances
from boys. They see how their mother behaves and learn from her example. Sons
learn to respect their mother and to behave with decency and honour towards
women. They are taught to treat all women as they treat their mother, and most
young men are very protective of their mother’s honour. A well brought up young
man knows that he should not take advantage of a young woman.
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. Exposing children to sex talk is unnatural, an
assault on the innocence of childhood and a subtle form of child abuse.
Moreover, because of the moral imperative that surrounds sexual behaviour,
because children know in their conscience that certain forms of behaviour are
wrong, they can only be confused and embarrassed by the crass attempts of their
parents to talk about sex. Indeed, most children are deeply embarrassed by the
thought of discussing the details of sex, condoms and sexually transmitted
diseases with their mother or father.
There is, of course, the
issue of those children who grow up in
single parent homes, who do not have the model of a family as a guide for their
behaviour. One reason children from single parent homes are especially prone to
sexual tragedies, is that they do not have the same degree of moral teaching
that is implicit in the family situation. It is, therefore, especially
important that those children who grow up in such situations should to be taught
the moral framework of the Bible. Those who claim that such children are
offended by being taught the importance of marriage and the family are wrong.
Children from broken homes (like the author) and single parent homes know of the
joys of a proper family, and desperately want something better for themselves.
It is completely wrong to withhold the Christian teaching of marriage on the
pretext of upsetting children whose parents are not married.
A great moral evil
Our study of the sex education movement has exposed one of
the great moral evils of our time. We have seen that it teaches children to
follow the pagan ethic of ‘do as you want’. We have uncovered a modern phallic
cult, like the Canaanites of the Old Testament, who worship sex and take
pleasure in spreading their amoral lessons of depravity among children. We have
exposed the lessons of depravity that implant unnatural and indecent sexual
thoughts into the minds of children. We have seen the graphic sexual images
that introduce children to lewd ideas and arouse sexual lust. We know that
children of 12 and 13 are being given contraceptives without the knowledge of
their parents. We know that children are being given condoms at school. We
also know that the delights of sexual pleasure are explained to children, with
the assurance that being ‘prepared with condoms doesn’t mean taking the fun out
of sex’.28 We know that children are told
that ‘safer sex’ allows them to have sexual fun whenever they like, with as many
partners as they like, free from any worry or problem. The message of the sex
educators sounds so plausible, for the hollow words of the sex propagandist are
as sweet as honey, smooth, reassuring, and persuasive. But the Bible warns of
the deceptiveness of sexual temptation—‘let no one deceive you with empty words’
(Ephesians 5:6).
The God of the Bible hates
evil, and in Deuteronomy six times commands his people to purge the evil from
among them. According to Thomas Trevethan, ‘God’s perfect goodness, his moral
holiness, demands that he stand opposed to evil and sin just as light stands
opposed to darkness. The two are incompatible. And because this holiness, this
light, is divine goodness, his opposition is not the passive resistance of a
mere spectator. His holiness rises up in active resistance to all evil, to all
that cheapens and distorts and destroys his creatures. The Holy One, in his
perfect goodness, is actively and intensely set against evil. He judges it as
the only holy Judge of all his creatures.’29
In view of God’s holiness, the Christian has a responsibility – more, the
Christian has an obligation – to expose the fruitless deeds of darkness and to
oppose their wicked practices. ‘Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of
darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the
disobedient do in secret’ (Ephesians 5:11,12).
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 righteous-ness, 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. I invite those who are reluctant to use
the Bible in the struggle against the evil of sex education, on the pretext that
it puts people off, to think again. We know that the sexual revolutionaries at
all costs want to avoid having their depraved messages exposed to the light of
God’s word. ‘This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved
darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil
hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will
be exposed’ (John 3:19-20). Without the
sword of the Spirit we are going into battle against the spiritual forces of
evil without our main weapon. With the full armour of God the Christian Church
should take a stand against the evil of sex education.
The moral condition of Great Britain at the
beginning of the twenty-first century is similar to what it was before the great
evangelical awakening of the eighteenth century. In the present state of moral
degeneracy the only hope for Great Britain is to turn to the same Christian
gospel that transformed the nation under the ministry of George Whitefield and
John Wesley. As the light of the world, the Christian Church must bear witness
to the truth that God’s moral law, as it relates to sexual behaviour, is for all
people and brings great blessing to those who hear and obey it. The depraved
messages of the sex educators should be rejected for what they are—lessons in
depravity.
There is a better way, there
is a message of hope. Without compromise the Church must take every opportunity
to teach the biblical virtues of modesty,
chivalry, chastity and fidelity. These virtues must be preached from pulpits
across the land and parents must teach them at home. And this is the message:
‘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; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage
of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you
and warned you. 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 4:3-8).
Return to top of page
Endnotes
1 Daily Mail, 14 December 2002, Sex
and the selfish society, Melanie Phillips
2 V Moens, G Baruch, P Fearon,
Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia, British Medical Journal, vol. 326,
7 June 2003, p1252
3 Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How
Now Shall We Live?, Marshall Pickering, 1999, p242
4 Teenage Pregnancy, Report of the
Social Exclusion Unit, HMSO, London, June 1999, p90
5 Love for Life, cited from
website, www.loveforlife.org.uk
6 Lovelife, Health Education
Authority, p17
7 Making a Decision, CARE
confidential leaflet, CARE
8 Sexual health matters for young women,
Health Education Authority, inside front cover
9 Sunday Telegraph, 30 October
1994, Bonking for beginners – sex education corrupts children and makes them
ungovernable, Patricia Morgan
10 Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change
Society, Social Market Foundation, 1999
11 Ibid. Teenage Pregnancy, p7
12 Ibid. p37
13 Steve Chalke, The Parentalk Guide to
Your Child and Sex, Hodder & Stoughton, p23
14 Isadore Rubin, ‘The Sex Educator and
Moral Values’, SIECUS Study Guide 10, 1969, pp6-9, cited from The SIECUS
Circle, Claire Chambers, Western Islands, 1977, p4
15 Teenage Parenthood, a submission
to the Social Exclusion Unit from CARE, 1998, p7
16 Sarah Gammage, The Teaching of
Sexuality, in Children and controversial issues, ed Bruce Carrington and
Barry Troyna, The Falmer Press, 1988
17 Allen I, Education in sex and
personal relationships, London, Policy Study Institute, 1987, p203
18 Anthony Clare, Sex and the confused
parent, The Listener, 2 October 1986, p21
19 Sex and Relationship Education
Guidance, DfEE, 2000, p15
20 Ibid. The Parentalk Guide to Your
Child and Sex, pp60-61
21 Hansard, House of Lords, 1973, Lord
Avebury, c1338
22 The Times, 18 February 1981
23 Pearson VAH, et al. Pregnant teenagers’
knowledge and use of emergency contraception. British Medical Journal,
1995; 310: p1644 (24th June)
24 Dick Churchill et al, Consultation
patterns and provision of contraception in general practice before teenage
pregnancy: case control study, British Medical Journal, 321, pp486-89
25 Williams ES, Pregnant teenagers and
contraception. Contraceptive failure may be a major factor in teenage
pregnancy, British Medical Journal, 1995; 311: pp806-7 (letter, 23
September)
26 Ibid.
27 Ashton JR, Marchbank A, Mawle P,
Hotchkiss J. Family Planning, Abortion and Fertility Services Health Care
Needs Assessment vol. 2. Radcliffe Medical Press, 1994, p588
28 Ibid. Lovelife, p6
29 Thomas Trevethan, The Beauty of
God’s Holiness, InterVarsity Press, 1995, p101
|