Previous | Next

Spring 1989 · Vol. 18 No. 1 · pp. 27–29 

Working Toward Recovery

Response to “Case Study” by Louis B. Weeks 18/1 (1989): 23–26.

Lynford J. Becker

Decisions affecting a group can be risky; they may lead to a “no-win” situation. One sector may judge the decision as “appropriate, necessary, obligatory, the right thing to do;” another views the decision as “wrong, out of order, irresponsible.” Several positive as well as negative observations emerge from the case.

. . . desensitized . . . like the frog that boiled to death by degrees.

I. SOME DECISIONS WERE RIGHT.

Here the need was for sex education. Randy Alcorn says, “The Christian church is riddled with immorality among the young and the older, the single and the married, the laity and leadership. Like the frog that boiled to death by degrees, many Christian homes have been gradually desensitized to sexual sin.” [Quoted from Alcorn’s Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution by Michael Ross, “War on the Family” Eternity (Jan. ‘89)] Alcorn believes unbiblical thinking is leading more and more Christians to immoral behavior.

Alcorn’s view is supported by the 1987 Josh McDowell ministry surveys about the sexual behavior of Christian teenagers. The poll, which surveyed {28} more than 3,000 evangelical youth ages 13-18 and represented eight denominational groups, found that by age 18, 43 percent of church youth had experienced sexual intercourse. By age 14, 17 percent had sexual intercourse. Thirty-six percent of the teens did not believe that premarital sex is a sin.

Survey director Dave Bellis holds that one factor contributing to the statistics is “the erosion of basic moral convictions brought on by society’s false and distorted message on morality and sex.” He claims that the church needs “sexual apologetics.” Tim Stafford, author of three Christian books on teen sexuality, says “churches need to become serious about sex education; not just having a session for teenagers when they become 16, but starting when kids are preadolescent, banding together as parents and organizing annual teaching seminars where the parents would be fully involved with their children, giving them the facts of life and presenting the Christian perspective.”

In view of such data, coupled with parents’ feelings of communication inadequacy, Dave Lawson (in case study) was right in his concern for the church’s youth and the need for a study on sexuality. He was right in consulting with Walt Simmons on curriculum resources. He was probably right in providing nearby seminary students the opportunity for field work in clinical pastoral education within his parish.

II. MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS CAN BE COMPLICATED BY CONFLICTING PERCEPTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

Whose responsibility is sex education—parents, church, school?

The church may choose to offer sex education. If so, with whom is the responsibility lodged. . .the pastor, director of Christian education, youth sponsor, a seminary student doing a research project, a parent? How is accountability factored into the process? The ultimate responsibility may rest with the senior pastor even though the assignment is delegated to another staff person.

III. THE RIGHTNESS OF AN ETHICAL DECISION IS DETERMINED ALSO BY THE DECISION PROCESS.

Right motivation linked with an inadequate process can result, as in this case, in an awkward predicament. The crisis arose due to inadequate processing, poor supervision, and perhaps irresponsible decision making. If sex education is pursued by the church, should not the teenagers’ parents have been informed and perhaps consulted? Should there not have been closer supervision of the teaching personnel?

Several negatives could be listed: 1) a flippant, irresponsible attitude in the class teacher, 2) inadequate preparation of the teacher. . .the survey had not been edited nor the co-teacher consulted, 3) the teacher’s apparent interest in a research project superseded his interest in the students’ needs, 4) the selection of a teacher who lacked understanding and perhaps appreciation of denominational relationships and theological perspective, 5) the class was not prepared for the survey nor was time allowed for discussion afterward, and 6) the supervision of the Director of Christian Education was inadequate. The wisdom of assigning the class to a novice could be questioned.

IV. RECOVERY FROM A WRONG ETHICAL DECISION OUGHT TO BE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CHURCH COMMUNITY.

A common response to this type of “crisis” is to say, “These things happen . . . let’s just forget it . . . it will blow over.” A more appropriate response might be that the pastoral staff and team leaders a) meet to review the events and reach a consensus on procedures, responsibilities, expectations, and accountability, b) meet with the parents to apologize for that which led to the “crisis,” inform, receive suggestions, review the overall curriculum together with need and objectives, and request their support in continuing the study, perhaps with modifications, and c) arrange to complete the course with or without Bill Thurston and with appropriate supervision.

Several questions should have been addressed initially: 1) Should the church provide sex education? 2) Are the parents supportive? Have they been informed? Consulted? 3) Is the resource material consistent with the church’s theological perspective? 4) Is there a qualified, mature teacher available? 5) How will the course be evaluated?

Churches like St. Mark’s need to be commended for their concern and willingness to address the sexuality issues but need greater sensitivity to the people groups involved.

Lynford J. Becker is Conference Minister for the United States Mennonite Brethren Conference and Stewardship representative for Mennonite Brethren Stewardship Ministries.

Previous | Next