Four reasons not to worry about the ethics classes

 

What do we do when a law we’ve benefited from changes? Perhaps it’s time to brush ourselves off and get back to the work of the gospel.

Public schools in NSW have time each week set aside for volunteers from approved religious groups to come and provide religious instruction to children whose parents identify as belonging to that religion, (as well as for any other children whose parents opt in). In the Christian sphere it’s known as school ‘Scripture’, though there are also Muslim, Hindu, Ba’hai and other religious groups running classes at the same time. Officially it’s named Special Religious Education (SRE).

Recently legislation has been passed allowing a secular ethics class to run at the same time. This has caused pain for many Christians, particularly as the classes do seem to be being sold to parents as being superior to SRE (although the Government reiterates its statement that this is not the case). Christians protested the change of law, but now it has changed and seems unlikely to be rolled back.

Time to get on with what we were already doing: sharing Jesus with children. Here are four reasons Christians don’t need to worry about the ethics course being offered in the SRE timeslot in NSW.

1. God is in control

If God places an open door before his people, no one will be able to shut it (Rev 3:8). On the other hand, if God allows a door of opportunity to close, then no amount of kicking from us is going to get it back open. Of course, let’s keep praying for open doors to preach the gospel of Jesus, like SRE has been (Col 4:3).

More theologically under this point, I note (e.g. from Romans 13) that all governments ultimately only exist by God’s establishment, even though they are imperfect. In this case, the NSW Parliament has duly passed legislation to permit ethics in the SRE timeslot, and we should accept the Government’s policy. Being in a democracy, we can certainly express our concerns and campaign for a change in policy and its implementation, as many have done with ethics. But we must respect the Government’s decision, and never forget that God is in control.

2. Competition is generally a good thing

If you run a cafe and a Starbucks opens up down the street, you know you’ve got to lift your game. You’ve got to ensure your waiters are friendlier, your coffee is fresher, and so on.

That’s what’s happening with SRE. For years we’ve known we need to do our best to improve as teachers of Scripture. But some SRE volunteers didn’t see this as a high priority. The kerfuffle over the new competition provided by ethics has made us see just how critical it is, and so standards of SRE teacher training and accreditation are being raised. For example, record numbers (over 200!) attended the Anglican Youthworks training day at the start of this year in Wollongong. That’s got to be a good thing for the kids in the SRE classes.

3. Some ethics teachers will become allies

Some people were using the idea of an ethics class as a ‘stalking horse’ aimed at getting SRE out of schools altogether. But others genuinely want the ethics option. Presumably some parents and citizens will start teaching ethics and discover they really like the course, and so will be great advocates, alongside SRE teachers, when those enemies of any spiritual and moral formation (if I can put it that way) in our schools try again to get rid of Scripture.

I hope the ethics providers will value the timeslot provided and will work with us to ensure the SRE/ethics timeslot is preserved.

4. We have an enduring motivation

So far the primary school ethics people have only been able to train enough teachers for about 60 schools, out of more than 2000 public schools in NSW—and then only for Year 5-6. I am sure that number will grow, but I predict it will be hard to sustain interest and effort from the volunteers. For I think that stopping kids from allegedly getting bored in non-SRE, or teaching philosophical ethical inquiry to try and be a rival to religion (as it is sometimes presented) are fairly reactive or negative motivations.

But as ethics providers struggle to provide teachers for their course, SRE providers will continue to staff classes in most of the schools across NSW. It should become apparent what a positive motivation we have driving our efforts.

As Paul wrote in 2 Cor 5:14, “Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all…”

For years it has been God’s love in Christ Jesus that has seen hundreds and thousands of volunteers give up their time to teach the children entrusted to them the great truths of the Bible. It’s not only a positive motive: it’s also the truth!

So there are four reasons Christians need not worry about the ethics challenge.

15 thoughts on “Four reasons not to worry about the ethics classes

  1. Sandy I do quite like the idea of Christians volunteering to teach ethics classes, just as in one of our local schools the Christians have currently volunteered to supervise non-Scripture kids as well as teach Scripture.

    However, I wouldn’t be volunteering to teach ethics at the local school until it is perfectly clear that the Scripture classes are over-staffed with capable volunteers or (the sad alternative) that the local churches have so failed that they are not providing anybody to teach Scripture. Even then, if I was able I’d be volunteering to set up the Scripture programme.

  2. Hi Gordo,

    I had not thought of suggesting Christians teach ethics. And I can see the merit of helping out in local schools in more than just SRE. But I agree that we should try and fully staff SRE classes with suitable, godly and trained volunteers first.

    A couple of other footnotes…

    1. The NSW Government has changed since I wrote this post. The new Liberal/National government initially promised in opposition not to permit Ethics classes to compete with SRE. However when the previous government successfully legislated to permit Ethics in the SRE time slot law, the previous opposition said they would not promise to repeal the law because they were unlikely to be able to get a majority for repeal in the upper house. Now it is quite possible they could get the numbers from cross benches in the upper house to repeal the legislation, but I suspect that horse has bolted, and perhaps fair enough.

    2. Regarding my point 4 above, I think the number of schools providing Ethics classes has probably increased since I first wrote this post, but not massively.

    3. I have a series of probing questions about the provision of Ethics classes I’d like parents to be ready to ask of Principals (and any local Ethics Coordinator) at local P&Cs;. My questions raise issues of proper accountability that thoughtful members of the community may well want answers too.

    Depending how the thread goes, I might post those questions here.

  3. Hello David, and in answer to your question, certainly not.

    If a law requires us to do something God forbids, or bans us from doing something God commands, then I think we should campaign against such a law, especially given we have democratic opportunity to do so in our society. And this might even apply in calling for justice in other forms of government too. But even more importantly in this case, we must obey God and not man, and that may mean taking the consequences that the earthly authorities dish out, like Peter did in Acts 4.

    We also see Paul, I believe, often using his full rights as a Roman citizen, at several points in Acts, in his efforts to show that Christianity is a ‘licit’ religion, rather than one that is ‘illicit’.

    As I said at the end of my point 1, we may continue to campaign, in almost all circumstances by lawful means, for a change in law or policy, especially given we are in a democracy.

    What do you think, David?

  4. I don’t think I see a lot of emphasis in scripture on campaigning, though I take your point that we have more freedom than was available in the first century, so in a sense we shouldn’t expect to see it.

    My issue with attempting to push Christian principles into a non-Christian legal system (is this a caricature of the position?) is that they have not the cross for comfort, the Spirit for strength, nor the hope of eternal life for stamina. So exactly what are we asking of them?

    Getting back to the work of the gospel – what is suggested in your first paragraph – means getting back to the only foundation and motivation for true obedience to God and doing what is just. I think anyone keen for justice should start here.

    And I agree that, as Christians, we should obey God and not man in cases where they disagree, submitting to God in the heart and deed and submitting to the government in whatever punishment is delivered.

    Wow I feel so off topic.

  5. Some worrying reasons not to be worried:

    I quote from a Sydney Morning Herald Article discussing one of the trial classes,

    “Ms Barker said the first classes gave students a dilemma and asked how they would deal with it.
    For example, what would a child do when already invited to one birthday party but then invited to their best friend’s birthday party on the same day.
    ‘‘It’s about getting them to work through ideas, to listen to each other and realise it’s OK to have a different idea and there’s no right or wrong answers,’’ she said.

    This is our ground breaking ethics classes in action.

    It does not seem to me (from the information I have read and my knowledge of our SRE requirements) that Ethics has training, quality control and curriculum anywhere near the standard set by SRE teachers.

    I think it likely that it will become apparent that there is neither the quantity of volunteers nor the infrastructure to support them in real practical terms to threaten SRE.

    Could be wrong, but I’ll be very surprised.

    Either way, your first reason is still the reason we should not despair but keep serving faithfully.

    Michael Hutton,
    Tamworth

  6. Thanks for commenting further. David, I see you are rightly keeping our focus on the main thing, and perhaps we should keep making explicit that sometimes we will suffer for gospel preaching.

    As a matter of interest, I do think one of the themes of Acts is showing that Christianity is a legit (i.e. law-abiding) religion in the Roman empire, rather than a socially destructive one (even in the face of the problems Paul got caught up in). Ben Witherington’s commentary on Acts has some stuff on this.

  7. Michael, thanks for your comments. I do think those of you involved in local public school P&Cs;, should have some sensible questions ready to ask your Principal and at the P&C, if the possibility of providing Ethics is being discussed.

    Of course, make sure you are friendly. Look at Proverbs 15:1 and note the importance of gentleness there, rather than getting stirred up in anger.

    In asking questions, it is important (if you can do so honestly) to say that – even though you may have had concerns about the Ethics trial, and would have preferred Ethics not to be in competition with SRE – you accept the Government’s decision. Now you would very much like to work co-operatively alongside any current or future providers of Ethics courses, in your school community.

    However in the same way that SRE has been subject to scrutiny and even criticism, you have some questions you would like to ask about any proposed Ethics course in the interests of accountability.

    Here are my suggested questions…

    1. Local churches (or mosques or temples etc) of authorised denominations provide local liaison and accountability points for SRE teachers. Although a local Ethics Coordinator must be found and appointed for a school before Ethics can go ahead, my question is what sort of local supervision and accountability structure is in place for the Ethics Coordinator and teachers (as opposed to accountability only to a head office in distant Sydney)?

    (I have heard reports of one Ethics Coordinator being appointed through online application, with only an over-the-phone interview!)

    2. What standards of child protection training are being provided? Is the ‘online’ child protection training proposed by Primary Ethics really sufficient? Again, what local body will really know the potential teachers personally to give accountability? Do members of the P&C feel this is satisfactory?

    3. Has the Ethics curriculum been revised in light of concerns expressed by Government-appointed academic, Dr Sue Knight’s independent evaluation of the Ethics trial, to take account of the tendency towards moral relativism she detected in it?

    (Michael, this is what you noted!)

    4. Will providers of SRE at our school be given equal opportunity to inform parents about the content of their classes, or to otherwise promote SRE, as might be given to any Ethics course?

    5. One reason given for promoting Ethics was to provide another option for students in non-SRE, who were allegedly sitting around doing nothing productive. However this will not solve the problem entirely, since some parents will still choose neither SRE nor Ethics. So will the school executive ensure that the alternatives provided in non-SRE, such as quiet reading and personal homework are not viewed as a waste of time, but as the valuable exercises we would otherwise view them as?

    Once again, questions like these should be asked in a polite way, although I would suggest you do not let the questions be referred to head office, but ask for local answers. Please stress your desire to work cooperatively with the school community.

  8. Below are some conundrums I propose be put to students as part of the ethics syllabus.

    1: You have a friend who claims to love you, but whom you never see and never hear from, and, whenever you ask him for help, his response is more or less: “I’ll assist you if I feel like it”. Meanwhile, this friend insists that you religiously “praise” him, or else he promises to punish you severely. Is this a friend woeth having?

    2: A man of superiority in a company is charged with five separate counts of sexual abuse of workers who were under his care during the same time period. The case for the prosecution is strong, given that the five separate charges tend to support the veracity of the others. Rather than completely assisting authorities with their investigations, the company involved pays exorbitant amounts money to lawyers who doggedly maneuver so that the five trials are held separately, in isolation from the others. As a result, the accused goes free on all five counts. Notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, on the spiritual scale of “good” and “evil”, toward which end of the scale does the company’s behaviour err?

    3: A man believes he has seen a ghost, but, when he tells his wife, she thinks he is probably mistaken, as she doesn’t believe in ghosts. The man concludes that his wife obviously hates the ghost. Is this a sensible summary of the situation?

    4: In “Primary School A”, rewards are issued for good behaviour and charitable acts, corporal punishment is dealt for misbehaviour, and the threat of a failure to graduate hangs heavy over the students, who are told they are being watched at all times by CCTV, and are thus encouraged to be demonstrably “good”. By contrast, “Primary School B” promises no such rewards or punishments, the students free to follow their consciences. Which of these two institutions do you believe will produce the most admirable individuals?

    5: You find yourself captain of a football team and it’s time to choose your players from the ranks of those who wish to play. Football is traditionally a boy’s game, but there are many girls who wish to play and are as capable on the field as any of the boys. Nevertheless, you choose to stick with tradition and ignore the girls completely. What is the word that best describes this attitude?

    6: Johnny is a good-natured man who happens to share sexual intimacy with other men. Freddy only has sex with women, and believes Johnny’s comeuppance is that he will be roasted in flames. Which one of these individuals would you say most deserves to reside in any sort of paradise?

    7: The Australian Museum Eureka Prizes “reward excellence in the fields of scientific research” – in particular, the Eureka Prize for Research in Ethics acknowledges “investigation of theoretical or practical ethical issues that…contribute to the understanding and development of ethical standards.” How sensible – or, indeed, ethical – would it be for this very prize to be sponsored by an organisation whose core belief is that faith without proof must inevitably triumph over scientific scrutiny?

    8: A corrupt and tyrannical king wants to divorce his wife so that he can marry another one that he’s got his eye on, but his religion decrees this not lawful under God. The king therefore declares himself head of a new religion in which such a divorce is more than possible. Assuming that there is a God, what do you believe he would have thought of this?

    9: What is a word for someone who does not tolerate the dissemination of opinions and prejudices other than their own?

  9. Hi Cyril, and I like your sense of humour, pointed though it is. Perhaps you think your conundrums should also be offered in SRE classes as well?!

    I am not quite as subtle or erudite as you. So I will set you a couple of ethical assignments…

    1. What does it mean to ‘straw man’ an opponent, and is this a just tactic in debate?

    2. Though it be expedient, is it wise to over-simplify a complex philosophical or historical issue for the sake of scoring a good point?

    3. What steps should one take in ethical discussion to most fairly represent your opposition and not to pit the worst of one side against best of your own?

  10. To reply in a different way…

    1. I have had some concerns about the course contents and nature of the way Ethics classes might be offered by the particular proponents in NSW, and also could see other options for delivery, if one was simply wanting to teach students ethics.

    2. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have never been fixated on avoiding Ethics in the SRE time slot. I have always publicly and personally welcomed competition in the market place of ideas, so long as it was on a level playing field.

    I have had experience of requests (for all providers) to be allowed to outline briefly to new parents what SRE is about denied, while the Ethics option has been promoted.

    3. Therefore, my post above genuinely welcomes Ethics onto the playing field now that the Government and then Parliament has acted.

    4. I expect I should be able to offer the same rigorous scrutiny to any Ethics providers that SRE receives.

    5. My questions for Principals and P&Cs; are genuine. There are genuine child protection and other quality control issues, which I take very seriously in authorising people to teach SRE on our behalf.

    I cannot imagine how it would be suitable for me as the local Anglican Minister to authorise a Teacher or Coordinator of SRE whom I have not met personally, whom perhaps I just interviewed on the phone, whom I am never or only rarely like to meet in person, let alone watch in action, and who has only completed child protection training by an on-line course.

    These are real issues.

  11. Hi Cyril

    1.  I think your first point rather cruelly points to the ‘Lord giveth the Lord taketh away’ conundrum.  I think having the benefit of living justifies calling the provider of life (if you believe in one) ‘loving’.  Not warm and fluffy, but loving all the same.  Punishment?  It hardly seems appropriate to attribute to a ‘God’ (if you believed in one) who was capable of creating anything let alone what we know of life and the universe our own understanding of morality.  I don’t really feel capable of it, so give ‘God’ the benefit of the doubt.
    2.  Well true the organized church has oh so often taken the wrong road.  But still, the principle of the belief system remains intact, even if the people let it down as we all know to our sorrow.
    3.  That is a very unflattering caricature of a religious belief system.  I’m not sure it is fair.  But I must declare an interest.  My father was a Presbyterian minister, and a scrupulously honest and decent man (but not without many faults).  I may well have been indoctrinated by his views, no, I definitely was.
    4.  I have often pondered an existence where everything was what I would regard at any particular time as ‘good’.  I always conclude that after about a week, what I thought was ‘good’ would become ‘bad’.  I have tried ‘scientific’ experiments using chocolate and I am convinced that I am right (for once) on this point.  So I have decided that if there was nothing you could describe as ‘bad’ there would be nothing good either.  So punishment, or unfortunate outcomes, is a necessary part of existence it seems.  The grass is always greener demonstrates the principle.  And where would ‘consciences’ come from if not from people like my good old dad?
    5.  Look I would definitely would have picked girls, because I went to an all boys school and would have loved a bit of a tussle down on the main oval with something softer than what was normally on offer.  But I think you are considering one of the lovely (but stern) Islander girls from western sydney, who all would agree could whip a man or two with one hand tied behind their backs. Seriously, I agree the church does not sell its position on women that well.  Equal but different.  Hmmm.  But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water on that one. 
    6.  I struggle with the focus on same sex attracted (I think that is the current phrase I recently heard on triple j).  To me sinners are sinners.  Same sex attracted, or pornography attracted.  I personally hope that if there is a God, they all end up being treated as they really deserve, not what some man thinks they deserve.  After all, there but for the grace of God go I?  Funny how that phrase seems to go out of fashion when church people discuss same sex attracted.
    7.  That is so cruel.  Can ethics and science really have a common boundary?  Anyway, I don’t think true scientists believe religious belief systems come into their arena do they?  Can’t really observe the almighty so not much point.  I am much in favour of cause and effect, which I can understand quite readily without having to accept what some overly learned fellow tells me.  This particularly effects me when I regard what seems to me to be the overly perfect fashioning of my children and their amusing if bizaare habits.
    8.  Defaming King Henry the Eighth.  Tut tut.  He was a top fellow, and his shenigans could well be blamed (or praised) for resulting in Elizabeth getting onto the throne and doing so much that was excellent and good.  I am not sure he would have agreed with your views.  You know, I think you and he may have seen eye to eye on some points.  He liked sport, women, and a good war in another country.  Not so entranced with church men either.
    9.  Again, the church has not come across so well on this one.  Why not allow everyone else to come in and spruik their products as well? Fair point.  After all, as soon as the kiddies leave the school it will happen anyway.  I’m not sure ‘does not tolerate’ is quite right.  More just had a bit of a whinge, dreaming of the good old days when everyone went along with it.
    Cheers Cyril.

  12. Cyril,

    Would you find this a satisfactory response to conundrums 1 and 2?

    “It’s OK to have a different idea and there’s no right or wrong answers”

    I’m interested in further discussion if you are.

Comments are closed.