WHO OWNS OUR CHILDREN
For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at:
Utopian idealists tend to believe that the State owns then. However, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao have proven poor parental substitutes. Consequently, they are now all gone and their experiments in State ownership are history.
Some collapses haven’t been violent and abrupt. Some utopian communities have merely found their idealism unworkable, and, therefore, have reverted to a more traditional understanding and practice.
In the early 70s, I had spent time on a number of Kibbutzim of the most radical and socialistic movement, Hashomer Hatziar. The Kibbutzim of this movement had been so radical that, initially, they had rejected marriage and the nuclear family as oppressive forms of “ownership.” However, by the time that I had stayed with them in the 70s, all had reverted back to the traditional nuclear families, although some tasks remained communal.
However, this discredited ideal of the State ownership of children stubbornly continues. In “To Whom Do Children Belong,” Melissa Moschella attempts to defend parental rights. At the beginning of her book, she quotes Melissa Harris-Perry:
∑ “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/09/17692/
Well, why shouldn’t children belong to their State? Doesn’t the State have a right and responsibility to ensure that children grow up into responsible adults? Of course! However, who can best ensure the welfare of the children and their positive adjustment to society?
Under the various utopian schemes, children have been made into the pawns of the prevailing ideology rather than the beneficiaries of parental love. The same critique can be made today.
Now, many school districts are pandering to the ideology of transgenderism. As a result, they are proscribing gender specific pronouns and encouraging young children to explore sexual alternatives. Besides, this ideology has become so militant that parents are no longer allowed to exempt their children from teachings they regard as inappropriate. Often, they are not even told about the schools’ advocacy of transgenderism.
About transgenderism and the State usurping the responsibility of the parents, psychiatrist Boris Vatel has written:
∑ The NYC Commission on Human Rights maintains that gender identity is "one's internal deeply held sense of one's gender, which may be the same or different from one's sex assigned at birth. This statement intentionally uses language to distort reality. Except in cases of rare medical conditions resulting in ambiguous genitalia, no one's sex is "assigned" at birth any more than the fact of belonging to the human species is assigned at birth.
∑ More significantly, this statement erroneously implies that a person's beliefs about himself carry more legitimacy than the physical facts that contradict such beliefs. Using the Commission's reasoning, can we declare an alternate "age identity" to be legitimately different from one's true age? What about "race identity" or even "species identity"? If one accepts as legitimate the logic by which men may identify themselves as women and insist on being considered as such by others, there is no reason to reject as invalid any number of other idiosyncratic identities that have no basis in reality. (Salvo Magazine)
Vatel compares the delusion of a boy thinking himself a girl with the delusion of subordinate thinking yourself the CEO of the company. Vatel argues that responsible psychotherapy has to challenge delusional thinking and not exalt it and pander to it through sex-change therapies.
If choice is exalted to encourage a boy to think he is a girl, why not also to encourage a Black to think he is a White, or a human to think he is a bird or a cow.
The parent understands the absurdity of such thinking, even more so, the potential damage to her children. The State doesn’t care. It has other concerns.
King Solomon, in his surpassing wisdom, understood this. When two women came before him, each claiming maternity over a certain baby, Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in two – one half given to each claimant. At this, the real mother cried out:
∑ “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!” Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.” (1 Kings 3:26-27)
In contrast, the State might have answered, “Fine! If I can’t have the child, then no one else should.”
The State can never provide parental love (and it has no interest in providing this), and the parents will never sacrifice their child to a vague, politically correct ideal. This is why parents must retain control over their children!
BETRAYAL OF THE GOSPEL AND THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE CHURCHES
In his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr.
lamented the fact that Southern White pastors had failed to join the Civil
Rights Movement:
∑ “In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have
watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious
irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty
struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard
so many ministers say, ‘Those are social issues with which the gospel has
no real concern.’”
Evidently, these Southern White churches were Seeker-Sensitive Churches
(SSC). They refused to preach an unpopular message, one which might turn
away the seeker and even the attender. They had forgotten the first great commandment to love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, and minds (Matthew 22:37) by abiding in His Word (John 15:7-14; 14:21-24).
However, these SSCs have now been joined by a wide range of brethren. Their message might be different, but the principle of political correctness remains the same - to not offend the prevailing culture, even if it means ignoring wide swaths of the Gospel.
However, we cannot ignore any of the Gospel, lest we incur the wrath of
God. Paul had been concerned about this very thing. Therefore, he testified
of his faithfulness in this regard:
∑ “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of
all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”
(Acts 20:26-27)
This is the very error of the SSCs. Please understand. I am not suggesting
that we shouldn't be sensitive to seekers. In fact, we must be (1 Cor. 9).
However, we must not be "sensitive" to the extent that we refuse to preach
the doctrines of the faith. The is not sensitivity but deadening silence
about some of the very things that should be screamed out from rooftops.
What doctrines are being left out? Many! Here is a partial list:
∑ Creationism: SSCs avoid this subject because they are afraid of seeming
to be science-rejectors.
∑ The children of the light vs. the children of darkness (2 Cor. 6:14-16):
In the eyes of many, this distinction seems overly harsh, culturally
insensitive, and divisive. Professional Christians want to be able to
embrace the cultural, and preaching such a radical distinction between
saved and unsaved makes this difficult. It is also potentially embarrassing.
∑ The role of women in the church: In SSCs, you will not find any
discussion about women in the pastorate.
∑ Sexual sins: As social sexual standards have changed, SSCs have gradually
ceased mentioning any form of sexual sin. This omission tends to
communicate that sexual sins really don't matter.
∑ Eternal Punishment, the Depravity of Man, and Salvation through
Jesus alone: These teachings are so integral to the Gospel that they are
only silenced as the SSCs approach an advanced stage of apostasy.
∑ The plight of the Christian refugees: The silence of the SSCs in this
area is perhaps the most disturbing silence, especially since the world is
supposed to know us by the love we have for our brethren (John 13:35;
17:20-23; Galatians 6:10). Yet I have experienced hostility from SSCs when
I have pointed out their dereliction in this area. SSCs claim that we
shouldn't be showing favoritism.
The Gospel was never intended to make us friends of the prevailing culture.
It's message will always offend.
What would Martin Luther King have said about our SSCs? I suspect that he
would have seen them in the light of the Southern White churches of the Jim
Crow days.
BLOG - http://www.mannsword.blogspot.com
New York School of the Bible: http://www.nysb.nyc/
No comments:
Post a Comment