Social education

Press, 21 May 1987, Page 20

Social education

Sir, —The lovely name of Christchurch reminds us of a time when community leaders more openly acknowledged the blessings of Christian social education. I watched Sunday’s excellent television panel discussion on A.I.D.S. The intelligent, caring panel members were trying hard to avoid much mention of morality, yet their goal was social education to contain the spread of A.I.D.S. One could certainly agree that no misplaced moral stigma should be imposed on those infected with this virus; they all need loving help. But moral aspects should be more openly admitted to be very significant in the spread of A.I.D.S. The unintended inference that any form of sexual conduct is equally acceptable morally, but that some forms are, unfortunately, more risky than others, is a very damaging, untrue inference. Nothing will reduce the spread of A.I.D.S. better than reducing promiscuity. Christian social education best leads to the power for that change.—Yours, etc. JOHN D. CANHAM. May 19, 1987. Sir,—David Shanks (May 11) confuses biblical Christianity and historical Christendom. The ugly historical events referred to occurred within Christendom, which is defined in my dictionary as “the territories, countries, or regions chiefly inhabited by Christians, or those who profess to believe in the Christian religion.” That is, there is a clear distinction between true believers and professing believers. r

Christendom also includes many non-believers. There is room for every crime in the calendar of crookedness in such a mixture. Christ said that the ugly things that pollute society come out of the natural human heart. To charge such evil to true biblical Christianity is perverse in the light of the recognised character of the true Christian faith. The “salt” and “light” of society (the Lord’s similes) are still, as always, Christian character manifest, in Paul’s words, as “love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness and self-control.” What better basis for social education? — Yours, etc., H. G. ORAM. May 14, 1987.

Sir, —According to John Canham (May 15), there are social educationalists advocating “unrestrained individualism or personal experimentation ...” Apparently, “they say promiscuous sexual conduct is all right, even knowing it spreads A.1.D.5.” It seems “they” also say it is fine to corrupt children for fun and profit. Since “they” are obviously crackpot “advocates of social education,” I am sure I am not alone in wanting to know who “they” are. Mind you, the anonymous “they” often appears in the rhetoric of those inclined to invent weak fantastic positions to attack, since the real positions are reasonably sound. That a leading light in the creationist book-controlling claque seems to be indulging in that sort of thing would, I suppose, be bom of necessity.—Yours, etc.,

DAVID SHANKS. May 16, 1987.