A great deal more heat than light has been generated by the growing controversy over sex education in public schools. Citizens’ groups—many affiliated with or influenced by nationally known organizations—have denounced sex education as immoral, pornographic, subversive, and Communist-inspired. Sex-education leaders themselves have been called Communists and pornographers. On the other hand, supporters of the program have represented opponents as ignorant and irresponsible obstacles to necessary progress.
Many who are in the front ranks of this bitter battle of words identify themselves as Christians. Certainly Christians should be keenly concerned about this important issue, and there are certain things about the approach of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) that they must question. But there is no excuse for irresponsible name-calling and accusation; such actions are foreign to the spirit of Christ. If criticism is to be constructive and effective, it must be informed. One cannot assume a charge is true solely because it was voiced by his favorite radio preacher.
Those who take the trouble to inform themselves discover that public-school sex education isn’t all bad. Investigation makes it downright difficult to believe that “Commies” are behind the whole thing, and the “pornography” often turns out to be some very un-titillating charts and diagrams. Furthermore, kids are getting sex education anyway, and sometimes what they get is pretty bad. Too often parents and churches have failed to face the problem. Perhaps the schools can be of great service in meeting a need in the lives of many young people. Sex education in the schools certainly does not deprive parents of the privilege; it could well be a useful supplement to the instruction given in the home.
But the current programs of sex education are not free of major problems for the Christian parent. Sex cannot be rightly understood as a purely physical experience, nor can it be taught in a moral vacuum. To present it in this manner implies that a moral and spiritual framework is not necessary for a proper concept of sex. Such a separation is unacceptable to those in the Judeo-Christian tradition and could lead to serious moral problems. There is also the concern—voiced by competent psychologists and psychiatrists—that too much sex information too soon can be more harmful than helpful in the normal development of the child. Another problem has to do with teaching about perversion. Will what the students learn about it be more suggestive than instructive at certain stages of development? And by no means of least importance is the question of who does the teaching. Unless the teachers are qualified technically, psychologically, and morally, the treatment can be inadequate and even dangerous.
It is a waste of time and a glaring distortion of Christian integrity simply to engage in a crusade of accusation and innuendo. Christians should use their time and energy to inform themselves, to offer constructive criticism and guidance, to work for a strong moral foundation in the programs, to consider the role of the Church in sex education, and, above all, to see that the Christian home meets its responsibility in giving information, in teaching moral standards, and in demonstrating what real love is all about.
