Two current questions provoke immediate visceral reactions—sex education in the schools and gun-control laws. The response may be wild—transcending logic and even the facts—or it may be reasoned, but always it is marked by intense conviction.
In the matter of sex education in the public schools, it appears evident that the real issue is not whether there will be such programs but rather what kind of instruction will be offered, to whom it shall be given, and at what age. The data from polls indicate that the majority of the American people favor sex instruction in the schools. Some want it because they believe it will reduce the problems of venereal disease and premarital pregnancy and improve social conditions. Others are convinced that it is essential for marriage stability, will shield young people from the influence of harmful information from unreliable sources, and will diminish prurient interest. Undoubtedly many parents who opt for sex education in the schools do so because they feel it will relieve them of a responsibility they hesitate to shoulder, an embarrassing duty they shrink from facing. By delegating this responsibility to the schools they are delivered from a sense of guilt and can disclaim blame for any untoward consequences.
Some people are opposed to sex education in the schools regardless of what it consists of and who does it. For them the question is not one of curriculum or teachers or value judgments about extramarital sex. Even if the materials used were wholly acceptable, they would still hold that sex education has no place in the schools.
Many people are indignant, however, not because sex is being taught, but because of the abuses that have sometimes accompanied this teaching. They fear it is getting out of hand morally, socially, and religiously. More than a score of state legislatures are now considering the subject, and undoubtedly some of them will act either to ban or to sharply curtail such programs.
Old wives’ tales have been circulated around the country about offensive acts stemming from the teaching of sex. When these have been discounted, enough reliable data remains to justify the angry complaints of aroused parents. Unfortunate incidents should be anticipated in any program dealing with sex. The nature of the subject will always prove attractive to people who have abnormal drives or psychological hangups about sex. Homosexuals, voyeurs, exhibitionists, and other deviates will be tempted to join the teaching ranks in an attempt to gain either an outlet for their sexual drives or a platform from which to propagandize for public acceptance of their irregularities.
One minister who became actively concerned about the sex-education program of his school system wrote us of his experiences. One of his complaints was that though evangelicals are criticized for lack of involvement in social matters, when he got involved and took exception to what was being offered, he was criticized for doing it. What was expected of him, he says, was acquiescence, the uncritical acceptance and endorsement of a program to which he objected. He complained that he and his group got little or no help from school administrators, and that educational materials they wished to scrutinize were withheld from them. Eventually, of the twelve high-school teachers considered a problem in his community because of their erotic approach to sex (one of them encouraged students to kiss her, fondle her, and express themselves in any way they saw fit), nine were dismissed, and the sex-education program in the schools was halted.
Conversely, a teacher from a Bible school in Oregon wrote saying: “In our area, the city of Portland, the sex-education program is an excellent one, worthy of support by evangelicals.”
Squarely in the middle of the current controversy stands the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States. All sorts of charges have been broadcast about this organization, and its opponents have subjected its leadership to exhaustive investigation. As a result, considerable misinformation has been spread abroad. Dr. Mary S. Calderone, the executive director of SIECUS, has been attacked vigorously, and her husband’s activities have been used against her in campaigns that have sometimes reached the point of vilification. All this has of course produced a defensive reaction by supporters of SIECUS.
If one were to decide for or against sex-instruction programs solely on the basis of SIECUS, a strong case could be made for scrapping them. No one can deny that the idea behind SIECUS—that children need instruction in this area because parents and churches have not fulfilled their duties adequately—is sound. Moreover, by no means is all the instructional material endorsed by SIECUS unsatisfactory. The most telling argument against SIECUS is this: the organization has become so embroiled in controversy that much of the value it might once have had has been nullified. Its usefulness may have been irretrievably lost.
In the first place, SIECUS has been inextricably identified with people whose viewpoints and life style have deeply offended many Christians. Chief among these is Isadore Rubin, one of the founding fathers and the first treasurer of SIECUS. Rubin was dismissed from his position in the New York City school system. He was identified as a member of the Communist party before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and took the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, refusing to answer questions about his alleged Communist affiliations. He is now the editor of Sexology magazine, of which more will be said later. Rubin has maintained close ties with people deeply involved in SIECUS and its operations and has never been repudiated by SIECUS. Consequently a number of organizations have pounced upon him and his career and used it tellingly against SIECUS. In the minds of many people, the activities of this one man serve to make SIECUS and its programs totally unacceptable.
Another person whose views have helped to tarnish the image of SIECUS—even though it seems he is not officially connected with the organization—is Dr. Albert Ellis. He has been lauded by Isadore Rubin as one of America’s leading sexologists, and there is no doubt that this is true. But what is also true is that as a leading sexologist he has raised the hackles of Bible-oriented believers by his humanistic and non-biblical views. At the University of Bridgeport he espoused “heavy petting to climax” for unmarrieds, and “as much sex activity as possible before you’re married—as intense as possible.” He encouraged married couples to have “intercourse in the same room at the same time.” He approved “communal” sex and said, “A great many people would enjoy mate-swapping occasionally. Have a ball.” Rightly or not, his name and his views have been so firmly linked with SIECUS that dissociation may be impossible.
A third association that has hurt SIECUS is its close tie-in with Sexology magazine. The editor of that magazine is Isadore Rubin, and four members of its board of consultants are also directors of SIECUS. Sexology has been labeled as pornographic by many of its critics. It hardly fills that bill when compared with the usual run-of-the-mill pornography. Its articles concentrate on sexual themes that are dealt with in a professional, didactic, and factual way. It answers questions many people would rather not ask a physician, a clergyman, or a counselor. From the biblical perspective its leading weakness is its a-moral stance. It generally neither approves nor disapproves of sexual aberrations. But on occasion some of its essayists have endorsed extramarital sex as beneficial. Because of all this, Sexology is a millstone around SIECUS’s neck, guaranteed to hinder its efforts as an educational agency for schools. No amount of propaganda will change this so long as Rubin and Sexology consultants are linked with SIECUS.
Perceptive observers have been disturbed also by the apparent mass exodus of members of the SIECUS board of directors. In 1965 thirty-four names were listed. Today twenty-four of those thirty-four no longer appear on the organization’s letterhead. Their places have been filled by others and the number of directors enlarged to forty-eight. Among those whose names are no longer listed are Mary I. Bunting, the president of Radcliffe College; William Graham Cole, the president of Lake Forest College; and professors from Harvard Medical School, New York University, the University of Southern California, Hunter College, and Columbia University. This rapid turnover in board membership in an organization little more than five years old lends credence to the suggestion that something is amiss.
Because of these and other aspects of SIECUS, the organization has been under heavy attack. And since in many minds sex education and SIECUS are inseparably linked, the fortunes of sex education tend to rise or fall on the basis of support for, or opposition to, SIECUS. This is unfortunate. As this essay is being written, the State of Virginia is faced with strong objections to its sex-education program, and the main charges are that SIECUS is behind the program and that Communist influence is being exerted.
It must not be forgotten that SIECUS, which seems to be the catalyst that makes people either fervid opponents or passionate supporters of sex education, is a Johnny-come-lately on the sex-education scene. Many schools offered satisfactory courses long before 1964, when SIECUS began. And if SIECUS were to disband tomorrow, sex-education programs would continue.
What are the minimum standards for sex-education courses that will satisfy the Christian who takes his life and world view from the biblical revelation?
First and foremost, sex need not and should not be taught in isolation. Instruction should deal with the whole area of love, courtship, marriage, family, and society; sex should be treated as only a part of that total package.
Critics have been quite justified in expressing disapproval of graphic materials that depict chickens, dogs, and human beings engaged in the sex act. Unless sensitive teachers offer further explanations, this type of presentation implies that intercourse is merely an animal act. It is indeed a physical activity that satisfies a normal appetite; but it is much more than this, and a child is cheated when the sexual relationship is not presented in a context of love, personal concern, the giving of self, and the concept of moral choice.
Moreover, children should be taught the facts of life only when they are old enough and mature enough to accept them without psychological harm or undue embarrassment. Even teen-agers do not need to be given detailed information about all aspects of the sexual relationship. Some things can wait for the post-high-school years and the approach of marriage. Sex is a very personal and intimate matter, and those who feel the urge to tell all in the supposed interest of candor and honesty should remember that the law of love may transcend candor and honesty at this point. Not all inhibitions are bad.
The part of family-life instruction that deals with the sex act should be taught to young people in separate classes. Some if not many students are totally unprepared for open discussion in mixed groups; to be placed in such a situation would cause them great embarrassment and perhaps real harm.
Sex cannot be presented in a moral vacuum. A school that allows its students to be taught that extramarital sex is a matter of personal choice or that no moral standards are binding is bound to create havoc for them. Moral principles are the cement that holds a culture together; history affords numerous examples of nations that collapsed and disintegrated when moral principles were set aside.
To speak of a moral framework for sex education is to raise the issue of church-state separation. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was framed not to do away with religion but to prevent any one religious group from becoming officially related to the government of a pluralistic society. We still have “In God We Trust” on our coins; we still have chaplains in the Senate and House; we still take oaths on the Bible in court, and the president of the United States still uses a Bible in his inauguration.
A school in which students are taught to believe in a system of relativistic ethics, especially in the area of sexual behavior, is taking advantage of Christian conscience at this point. All teaching is undergirded by some life and world view, whether it is held consciously or unconsciously, and complete neutrality and objectivity is impossible. Only the rarest teacher is able to present all sides fairly and to keep his students from being influenced by his own bias. And even this teacher may be forced to take a stand when students probe to find out what he himself believes.
Since sex is inextricably linked with morality and religion, sex-education classes should not be mandatory for all children. Parents have an inalienable right to decide whether their children should be exposed to this teaching, particularly since the programs will always vary widely from community to community. Some communities will offer courses of study offensive to Christian conscience; others will offer highly satisfactory ones.
Observers have pointed to Sweden as an example of a nation where universal sex education has become traditional in the schools. And opponents of sex education have been quick to reply that in Sweden the statistics for premarital intercourse, rape, sodomy, illegitimate births, and venereal disease have shot up at an alarming rate. It would be incorrect, however, to lay the sole blame for this at the door of sex education. By and large Sweden is now one of the world’s large mission fields. Few of its people attend church, and the moral principles of Christianity have little or no place in Swedish life. The value of sex education can hardly be tested fairly in a moral vacuum.
Given the present situation, what can Christians do about sex education?
First, Christians should get involved in their local schools. They can do this through the PTA. They can review the books and other materials used in sex-education courses. They can try to persuade school administrators, elected school-board members, and even teachers, to maintain standards that do not violate biblical teaching. Parents have a high stake in their children’s education and should have a determinative voice in what they are taught. If colleges and universities allow their students to be involved in the decision-making processes, how much more should parents be represented in these processes on the grade-and high-school levels. Teachers and administrators are more qualified than parents in some areas, but not in moral matters.
Secondly, parents owe it to their children to instruct them in the home, by example as well as by precept. If they themselves lack information, they should get it. Concerned parents can establish their own teaching classes, bringing in well-informed instructors who can help them learn what they need to present to their children.
Thirdly, Christian parents should see that their churches provide sex-education classes as part of the Christian education program. Churches can help parents also by offering instruction for them as well as for their children. Evangelical Sunday-school publishing houses have an opportunity and a responsibility to make materials for sex education available. Concordia Publishing House has done much in this area, and others will do well to follow that example.
Ultimately the kind of education that children receive can be determined by the parents. If their children are given what they disapprove of, they have no one to blame but themselves. Human nature, marred by sin, stands in need of correction, and sex education will never be any better than the people who control it. Therefore eternal vigilance by parents is the price of adequacy, purity, and biblical soundness in sex education—a highly important need ideally fulfilled by a properly functioning program involving the home, the church, and the school.
