When policy trumps reason

I think one of the most difficult issues Christianity has faced over the centuries is: how do we govern others who do not share our beliefs? In the U.S., this public policy question has dogged us for centuries because we carry two divergent traditions: the religious zeal of the Puritans and the independent spirit of the frontier.

On one hand, we hoped to establish the Biblical “city on a hill” (Matt. 5:14) and we imagine ourselves “a Christian nation.” On the other, “it’s a free country,” and we just want to be left alone to pursue our own path to happiness.

Therein lies a critical question for public policy: Rome fell because of its decadence; if we are not the superpower we once were, is it because of our moral condition? And more importantly, can we regain power in the world by becoming more virtuous? (That's Cullen Murphy's book "Are We Rome?" to the left")

So I can understand the Christian right’s efforts to instill moral values in young people, even if several of our legislators cannot live up to those values themselves. ("Who can keep track of them all?" Slate.com's illustrated guide. Don't forget to add Blackwater.)

However, I disagree with policies driven by idealism rather than reality. As an example, I’ll use the Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs. A report came out this past April about the efficacy of programs over the past ten years, and it wasn’t good. [Source]

The Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 has provided for $50 million federal dollars, matched by $37.5 million state dollars, to be spent annually on “A-H” abstinence education. By 2009, the total spent will top $1 billion.

The study looked at 1,209 participants among four programs and compared them to 848 non-participants in areas such as sexual behavior and risk knowledge.

In terms of behavior, there was no statistically significant difference in areas such as percent of abstinent students, condom use, age at first intercourse, or number of sexual partners. Knowledge about such issues as unprotected sex risks and STD consequences were also unaffected, though STD identification test scores were 2 percent higher among program participants.

The study’s recommendations are as follows:

“Given the lack of program impacts on behavior, policymakers should consider two important factors as they search for effective ways to reduce the high rate of teen sexual activity and its negative consequences.”

Those factors, by the way, are: 1.) Targeting youth solely at young ages may not be sufficient, and 2.) Peer support may be protective but erodes sharply during the teen years.

So basically, we’ve spent almost a billion dollars on abstinence programs and the only thing we have to show for it is a two percent increase in STD identification scores.

Wow.

So what should we do now? Shall we junk the program, realizing now that teens listen to the federal government even less than they do their parents? Or shall we continue, comfortable in the knowledge that we are teaching “the right way,” even if our kids aren’t listening?

Perhaps we should expand it, confident that country’s policymakers can not only replace good parenting but figure how government money can also “provide protective peer support” for teenagers.

Abstinence is a good thing, but it’s something the federal government cannot teach. If anyone, that kind of thing has to come from parents – parents who, by being involved in their children’s lives, are able to “sufficiently target youth” beyond just “a young age” and “provide protective peer support” even during their teen years.

As for the question, “How can we Christians govern others?” I would recommend this:

Read Joshua 24:15, and start with your own household.