Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘children at risk’

John StonestreetJohn Stonestreet’s article in Breakpoint is a perfect follow-up to my post of yesterday.  John writes:

You probably won’t see her on Fox News. And she doesn’t have a column in National Review. But a lesbian academic trained at Yale, Camille Paglia, who describes herself as a “notorious Amazon feminist,” is an unlikely prophet of cultural doom. And maybe that’s why we should listen to what she has to say.

In a wide-ranging interview in the Wall Street Journal, Paglia says most feminists today deny the basic differences between the sexes, and as a consequence are setting us up for a huge fall. “What you’re seeing is how a civilization commits suicide,” she says.

How? Well, Paglia says, many members of the cultural elite have no experience in the military and in fact disdain military service, a traditionally male province. “These people don’t think in military ways,” Paglia says, “so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind…. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”Daily_Commentary_01_09_14

Friends, as our friend Chuck Colson would say, this isn’t primarily a knowledge problem. It’s a worldview problem. Paglia says modern feminists pass that misunderstanding onto the rest of us at the earliest opportunity—in kindergarten.

“Primary-school education is a crock, basically,” Paglia warns. “They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.” As the Journal article relates, “she sees the tacit elevation of ‘female values’—such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation—as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.”

And the same thing happens, she says, all the way to college. “The PC gender politics things,” Paglia says, “the way gender is being taught in the universities… is all about neutralization of maleness.” Another prominent feminist, Christina Hoff Sommers, who first alerted us to the ongoing “war against boys” in the culture, agrees, saying, “Boys are languishing academically, while girls are soaring.”

Male neutralization, Paglia says, includes the idea that men and women are biologically the same and that gender is nothing but a social construct. And this is why we shouldn’t be surprised that California schools have started to allow kindergartners with supposed “gender identity” issues to go to whichever bathroom they choose.

Paglia warns us that men have “no models of manhood” in our culture, adding: “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The culture, this feminist admits, needs men and it will die without them. Wow.

So what to do about it? Paglia suggests a “revalorization” of traditionally masculine trades, such as construction, electrical, and plumbing work, which pay well enough but don’t come with the PC cache of a college degree. Well, that’s a start, but what I’d really like to see is a “revalorization” of traditionally masculine virtues.

Newsletter_Gen_180x180_BWe have too many guys, even in the church, afraid to be men. We need men not afraid to be strong risk-takers, to be courageous, to take responsibility, who are self-controlled, gentle leaders and willing providers. We need these real men in our homes and the public square, in churches and in neighborhoods. Remember, God made us male and female. We need both.

Now I realize I may be walking on thin ice here, because virtue is not gender specific. Women can also be strong! I pray my own daughters will be bold risk-takers for the kingdom—but as women, not as men.

Come to BreakPoint.org for some strong Christian resources and good reads on masculinity, what it means to be a man—for men and for boys. . . because we need strong women and strong men. In fact, Western civilization depends upon it. Just ask Camille Paglia.

Read Full Post »

In Bible class, we’ve been studying history as revealed through Genesis.  Last Sunday, we considered the angel’s visit to Sodom and Gommorah.  They came to rescue Lot, the nephew of Abraham, before destroying the cities.  Why were these cities marked for destruction?  “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gommorah is great and their sin is very grave” (Genesis 19:20).  How grave was their sin?  Let me quote from verses 4-5: “. . . [T]he men of the city, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.  And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”  Know them?  Yes, like Adam “knew” or was “one with” his wife.  Except, in the case of all these men, there could never be a natural and “good fit.”

Lot, the husband and father of the one apparent believing family in Sodom, was so desperate to prevent the sin of sodomy upon his guests — God’s own angels — that he offered his daughters to the begging men.  For those who think this one through, I don’t need to say anymore.

It is a fact that archeologists and geologists have discovered the charred remains of Sodom and the surrounding cities.  I’ll leave it to you to believe — or doubt — that God really did destroy the cities.  I choose to take the author of Scripture at His word.  “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24).  When Lot gathered up his wife and daughters, his sons-in-laws thought he was jesting.  They didn’t take his warning seriously.  Martin Luther observed, “The nearer the world is to destruction, the smugger it is.”

Have we grown smug?  I think so.  Unbelievers completely disregard the reality of Sodom and its particular evil.  Christians who have been deceived by the world and their own weak flesh observe that what happened at Sodom was the lack of hospitality.  But, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I trust that Sodom was destroyed because the True God cannot remain patient with the distortion of His creation — or the idol worship of ourselves — forever.

With Sodom in mind, I am going to do something I would prefer not doing.  Lest anyone think we have not fallen to the state of that historic city of Sodom, you might want to view for yourself the photos of the recent gay pride parade and festival in Philadelphia.  If you can bear it, take note of the involvement of children.

Truly, I am saddened, no, sickened to have to draw anyone’s attention to these photos.  But, our eyes must be open.  We must warn against anything that separates people from God.  We cannot simply turn our backs on each other.

Those who boast in their “gay pride” are real people.  Many of them are hurting people with stories that would break our hearts.  Some of them have been abused.  Some are confused.  And, yes, some have willingly chosen to mock their Creator.  As caring people who are called to follow Christ, we must see what is happening.  Such perversion of creation does not glorify God.  It cannot build a generation of hope.  We are needed to speak truth.  To stand against evil.  To love the repentant neighbor caught in sin. To gently lead out of sin to a new life in Christ.

So, view the following. Then decide where you will take your stand.  Will it be on His Word… or the word of the deceiver?

http://americansfortruth.com/2012/06/21/philadelphia-gay-pride-parade-and-festival-feature-lewd-acts-porn-booth-sadomasochists/#more-11937

Read Full Post »

The question was asked, “What is the difference between ‘modern sex education’ and ‘comprehensive sex education?'”  The answer: Both are education in sex.  Education in sex is quite different from God’s Word to instruct in purity and guard modesty.  So, perhaps, when we know a particular class is called “sex education” or “sexuality for boys and girls,” or a set of books is labeled “a sex education series,” or even “Christian Sex Education,” we ought to ask: What are the desired outcomes?

One of the desired outcomes of modern sex education is to help boys and girls become more comfortable with their bodies.  With their “sexuality.”  A well-known Christian author/teacher in the field of sex education once confronted me.  He said: I understand that you’re displeased with our church’s sex education.  In that particular time and place, I could only respond quickly with my concern about modesty.  “Yes, I am concerned.  Couldn’t we, at the very least, teach boys and girls separately so as not to break down their natural inhibitions and destroy protective boundaries?  Doesn’t God desire that we protect the innocence of children?”  His response?  He said he was pleased that his son, at age ten, knew more about sex than he did at that age.  I wondered aloud: “Is that a good thing?”

Modern sex education has, indeed, achieved a desired outcome.  Everywhere I look, I see young women who are comfortable with their bodies.  Their “sexuality.”  They are comfortably exposed at the Lord’s Table much to the discomfort of pastors offering the sacrament.  They are comfortably exposed at the mall, on the beach or at the pool, on dates, playing sports, at church youth events, or in Bible study.

Girls are, indeed, comfortable with their “sexuality.”  Christian girls shop at Victoria’s Secret or Abercrombie & Fitch just like non-Christian girls.  They purchase sensual dresses for prom or other social events, often to the delight of moms who gush pride in their “sexy” daughters.  Girls are not embarrassed by sexually-suggestive remarks.  They speak, text, and post sensual messages.  They are so “comfortable” with their bodies — their “sexuality” — that very little is left to the male imagination.

It’s difficult to mentor, guard, or practice modesty when sex education’s goal is to make classrooms of boys and girls together more comfortable with themselves.  When God speaks of modesty, isn’t He calling us to be “holy” as opposed to “sexy”?  Isn’t He calling us to dress and act in ways that call attention not to our glory, but His?  And, as with all things godly, isn’t there a reason for this?

Those who promote Christianized-sex education insist that their emphasis is on chastity.  They claim this is a far cry from secular instruction on how to use a condom or where to go for an abortion.  But, the innocence of children is stolen away by even the most passionate Christian who wants to come out of the Victorian closet of prudish inhibition.  There are many well-meaning Christians who, with the sincere hope of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and unwed pregnancy, support some form of sex education.  But, Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis explained to me that he views “modern sex education as child abuse because it is ill-planned and poorly thought out, thus adding to the very problem it is trying to address and eroding the structure of a healthy family.”

What does he mean?  Perhaps this.  So-called “sex education” before Alfred Kinsey was generally a discussion of human biology and procreation, hygiene, and marriage.  It was a discussion to be had in the home with the parent in the role of teacher.  Who would better guard the virtue of children?  Who would better explain “sex” (defined by a pre-sexual revolution dictionary as ones “maleness” or “femaleness”)?  Who would better assist a son or daughter in being patient until marriage and, thus, help build a structure for a healthy family?  But, after Alfred Kinsey, this life-shaping responsibility was transferred to school teachers and so-called “experts.”  Prior to the release of Kinsey’s research, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, no child development experts suggested that children were sexual from birth or that they benefited from childhood sexual activity (or, I’d like to add, from childhood sexual discussions between boys and girls in classrooms).  (Note: For documentation on this and more, I recommend you read Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, 2000)

In 1986 Planned Parenthood (PP) commissioned a poll to determine how “comprehensive” sex education affected behavior.  “Comprehensive” means placing emphasis on the practice of “safe sex.”  Much to the PP’s dismay, the study showed that children exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all.  (Planned Parenthood Poll, “American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control.”  Lou Harris and Associates, December 1986, p. 59, table 6-1.)

So, I wonder:

  • Do Christian children exposed to modern sex education (post-1960, teacher/expert, boy/girl classroom-style) have a higher rate of sexual awareness, sensual dress, and sexual inhibition than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Has sexual activity increased more among Christian young people who’ve been sexually-educated in the last three decades than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Do Christian young people who’ve been made more comfortable with their “sexuality” suffer from more sexually-transmitted diseases, depression following multiple bonding, unwed pregnancy, and post-abortion grief than those who’ve had no sex education at all?

I’m thinking that it just might not be a good thing — no, not a good thing at all — if my nine-year-old grandson knows more about sex than I did at his age.

Read Full Post »