My D.Min. project was a comparison of two sexuality education programs for the church. The complete document is a 100-page PDF (4.1mB). The original is at the Claremont School of Theology library. Though it was originally copyrighted by me, I now give permission based on this Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial. The two courses have now been superceded by (presumably) better versions more fitting to current young people. The chapter on theology might be of most interest: it is entitled Theological Resources for Responsible Sexual Relating From the Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr and begins on page 41 of the document, page 50 of the PDF document. I'm also aware of the debate over the male-centric and sexist assumptions he makes about human sin, basing it on the experience of males and privileged people. See this article for more on this problem.
- Title Page, Acknowledgements, Preface, Abstract (PDF 329k)
- Chapter I: Description of the programs (PDF 1.9mB)
- Chapter II: Theological Resources ... Niebuhr (PDF 1.2mB)
- Chapter III: A Dialog on the Theology of Sex Education (PDF 986k)
- Bibliographies--Sources CIted and Other Works (PDF 318k)
ABSTRACT
The two courses used for this work are the Unitarian (calderwood, 1971) and the Southern California United Methodist (Task Force, 1973).
The first chapter describes the courses and highlights implicit and explicit theological presuppositions.
The second chapter applies Reinhold Niebuhr's ethical system to sexual behavior. Sexuality as incorpor
ated into the unity of the human self participates in all the aspects of selfhood, and is an expression of it. As
such it must not be separately considered as a special case of human behavior, but rather is under the same demand of
agape as all other acts. Mutuality and justice are the provisional norms of agape for human life.
Chapter three discusses similarities and differences between the courses. A dialog is constructed among the
positions of the courses and that of chapter two. Areas of agreement are integration of sexual behavior into the total personality, and the goodness of sexuality. Misuses and problems lack serious consideration in the courses, particularly the Unitarian. Specific expressions are acknowledged and dealt with in the Unitarian, much less in the Methodist course. Responsible decision-making must include more input than is indicated in either course. The issue of consequences of sexual behaviors is more complex than acknowledged by either; some issues are illustrated. The best church sex education would be a combination of the best characteristics of both of these courses.