I'm fascinated by a new debate that has emerged in our nation in recent days. It relates to the teaching of the Christian Scriptures in our public schools. It is proposed that, as an alternative to the teaching of Scripture in the classroom, a course on ethics be made available. This new course would not replace the "religious" component of the current classes but provide another option for children who do not attend Scripture classes.
Ethics would deal with issues of belief and behaviour; presumably the rights and wrongs of moral issues and choices relevant to children. Those children would be encouraged to discuss such issues and develop a code of conduct that would become part of who they are and how they behave.
My question regarding this new approach is simply this:
"Since every ethical system must have some kind of foundation upon which that system of beliefs is built, which particular system or life philosophy will serve as the foundation for the ethics curriculum in our schools?"
I believe that the trial ethics curriculum has been developed by the St James Ethics Centre in Sydney and the aim is to "provide a secular complement for the discussion of the ethical dimension of students' lives". That immediately suggests to me that only non-religious (in other words, secular) material will be permitted into the discussion. Since there is nothing neutral about secularism, how is the teacher of this ethics course going to remain neutral? What code of ethics informs and influences that person's life?
The reason I am fascinated by this emerging debate is the way that so-called secular ethics seems to echo much of what we find in Biblical or religious ethics. For example, there seems to be general agreement that human life is precious and we need to protect it from abuse and destruction. From where did that commonality come?
I must press in with this question, "Given that Christian ethicsare based on the teaching of the Bible and secular ethics reject the Bible as having any authority in ethical matters, how do we explain this basic agreement?" It's as if we have all been reading the same book, listening to the same guru, watching the same example. In many ways both lots of "fruit" (secular teaching and religious teaching) look quite similar. So where is the common "root"?
I believe the explanation is quite simple. All of us are made in the image of God. Many religions recognize that fact. Secularism does not. However, the denial of this truth by secular humanists does not change the fact. They, too, are made in that same image of God.
To be made in God's image has nothing to do with physical appearance. It has everything to do with likeness to God in personhood and values etc. If the image of God is the root, it follows that the fruit will reflect those God-like values.
Now, the image of God in each of us has been badly damaged by the impact of sin but not obliterated. What remains of that image still exercises some influence - to a greater or lesser degree - and that is why we see both similarities and differences in the various codes of ethics that exist today - religious and non-religious.
Christians are in the process of having the image of God renewed within them. Secular humanists resist and reject that process. Hence the widening gap between those who submit to God's authority in their lives and those who reject it. This change explains the differences in their various codes of ethics.
So, where does that leave us with regard to this alternative 'movement' to compete with the religious dimension - especially the Christian dimension - in the classrooms of our public education system? I believe we must arm ourselves with the question I asked earlier - "Since ethics must have some kind of foundation upon which that system of beliefs is built, which particular system or life philosophy will serve as the foundation for the ethics curriculum in our schools?"
We must insist that this question be answered by those advocating this change. I have no doubt that the ensuing effort of those seeking to answer this question will provide us with multiple opportunities to make the case for the "image of God" truth informing and influencing all that purports to be ethical in nature and practice.
I like the way Major Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby comments:
It will be interesting to see how values such as loving one's neighbour, self-sacrifice, helping the poor etcetera are dealt with when the Bible stories that have shaped our understanding of these concepts for hundreds of years are excluded from the discussion.
