Gender Blog

The Scandal of Gendercide � War on Baby Girls

R. Albert Mohler Jr. — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:14:29 +0500

[This post originally appeared on Dr. Mohler's�blog�on March 11, 2010.]

The reality has been known for years now, though the Western media have generally resisted any direct coverage of the horror. That changed this week when The Economist published its stunning cover story -- "Gendercide -- What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?"

In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing -- sacrificed by parents who desired a son.� Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.

The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, "Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys' greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale."

In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: "It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions--aborted, killed, neglected to death."

In its detailed and extensive investigative report, the magazine opens its article with chilling force. A baby girl is born in China's Shandong province. Chinese writer Xinran Xue, present for the birth, then hears a man's voice respond to the sight of the newborn baby girl. "Useless thing," he cried in disappointment. The witness then heard a plop in the slops pail. "To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail!"� When she tried to intervene she was restrained by police. An older woman simply explained to her, "Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here."

The number of dead and missing baby girls is astounding. In some Chinese provinces, there are more than 130 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. The culture places a premium value on sons, and girls are considered an economic drain. A Hindu saying conveys this prejudice: "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden."

Midwives even charge more for the birth of a baby boy. But the preference for a boy rises with both economic power and the number of children born to a couple. The imbalance of boys to girls is no accident -- it reflects a prejudice that runs throughout the societies where the abortion and killing of baby girls is considered both understandable and routine.

Add to this the widespread availability of ultrasound imaging services. Even though the governments of China and India have officially declared sex-selection abortions to be illegal, they persist by the millions. (And, interestingly, the magazine notes that Sweden actually legalized sex-selection abortions in 2009.)

This sentence from the investigative report is particularly horrifying: "In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin."

In other words, even as the spread of ultrasound technology has greatly aided the pro-life movement by making the humanity of the unborn baby visible and undeniable, among those determined to give birth only to baby boys, in millions of cases the same technology has meant a death warrant for a baby girl in the womb.

There are multiple factors that lead to the preference for boys over girls. In China, the government's draconian "one child only" policy has led to both forced abortions and an effective death sentence for baby girls when a couple is determined that, if their children are to be so drastically limited, they will insist on having a son. As the magazine explains, "For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son."

Consider this:

In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children-or, as in China, are allowed only one-they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next-and probably last-child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.

The social consequences of this imbalance are vast and uncorrectable. China and India now face the reality of millions of young men and boys who have absolutely no hope of a wife and family. In China, these young men are called guanggun or "broken branches." Just consider this -- the 30 to 40 million "broken branches" in China are about equal in number to the total number of all boys and young men in the United States.

These young men represent a looming disaster on the societal level. Young males commit the greatest number of criminal acts and acts of violence. Marriage has been the great taming institution for the social development of young males. Without prospect for marriage and a normal sex and family life, these multiple millions of unmarried young men are becoming a significant social challenge in China and India. Some observers even argue that this may lead to an increased militarism in the region.

Of course, the greatest disaster is personal for the young men and boys who face the future as "broken branches." The parents who insist on having boys are dooming their own sons to lives of brokenness, frustration, and grief.

And the future looks even more ominous for baby girls. Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute points to "the fatal collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility." As the magazine adds, "Over the next generation, many of the problems associated with sex selection will get worse. The social consequences will become more evident because the boys born in large numbers over the past decade will reach maturity then. Meanwhile, the practice of sex selection itself may spread because fertility rates are continuing to fall and ultrasound scanners reach throughout the developing world."

While imbalances such as now found in China and India are unknown in the West, the practice of sex-selection abortion is found here as well. Indeed, there is no current law against the practice in the United States, where abortion is legal for any reason, at least in earlier stages of pregnancy. In reality, sex selection abortions happen here, too. After all, proponents of abortion in the United States infamously insist on a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion "for any reason, or for no reason."

The Economist is right to call this tragedy gendercide -- the targeting of baby girls for death and destruction simply because of their gender. The magazine deserves appreciation for its no-holds-barred report on this tragedy, and for forcing the issue to be faced. Furthermore, The Economist ends its editorial with the right message, "The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down."

Will reports like this awaken the conscience of the world to the unspeakable crime and global tragedy of gendercide? If not, what will it take? The blood of millions of murdered and missing baby girls cries out to the world's conscience. Will we hear?

________________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

"Gendercide," [editorial] The Economist, March 6, 2010.

"Gendercide -- The Worldwide War on Baby Girls," The Economist, March 6, 2010. The extensive investigative report is available in the magazine's print editions but is available online only to subscribers.

Women and Children First? A Tale of Two Ships

R. Albert Mohler Jr. — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:59:41 +0500

[This post originally appeared on Dr. Mohler's�blog�on March 5, 2010.]

The scenario is well known, and the story still haunts the modern mind. The great ocean liner that was built as unsinkable struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912 and sank early the next morning, taking 1,517 of 2,223 lives on board. The RMS Titanic became a parable of modernity -- of the limits of technology and the hubris of humanity. It is also a subject of enduring fascination because of the stories of those who lived and died, known to us because of the fame and fortune of so many on the Titanic.

Less known to many is the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which was torpedoed by a German U-boat on May 7, 1915, taking 1,198 of 1,959 lives on board. The sinking of the Lusitania was a major factor in bringing the United States into war against the German Empire in World War I, but it plays a much less prominent role in the American imagination -- largely thanks to Hollywood and its fascination with the Titanic.

But more is at play here, for the two sinkings were notably different in one crucial respect. The Titanic took hours to sink, leaving time for a remarkable human drama on board the sinking ship. The Lusitania sank in just eighteen minutes, leaving far less of a human trace in the imagination.

As it turns out, there was another crucial difference. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looks at the difference in the behavior of the men aboard the two sinking ships. The difference was remarkable. Aboard the Titanic, the men generally behaved with great concern for women and children, doing their best to get the women and children into the precious and insufficient seats in the lifeboats. Hundreds of men died with the Titanic, demonstrating a commitment to put the welfare and lives of women and children above their own.

Aboard the sinking Lusitania, the scene was very different. Women and children were less likely than men to survive that disaster, because the men used their natural strength and speed to take the spaces on the lifeboats, with women and children forced out of their way.

As The New York Times summarizes: "On the Titanic, the study found, children were 14.8 percent more likely to survive than adults, while on the Lusitania they were 5.3 percent less likely to do so. And women on the Titanic were 53 percent more likely to survive than men, while on the Lusitania they were 1.1 percent less likely to do so."

TIME Magazine offers further detail:

The results told a revealing tale. Aboard the Titanic, children under 16 years old were nearly 31% likelier than the reference group to have survived, but those on the Lusitania were 0.7% less likely. Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania. For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%. The most striking survival disparity - no surprise, given the era - was determined by class. The Titanic's first-class passengers had a 43.9% greater chance of making it off the ship and into a lifeboat than the reference group; the Lusitania's, remarkably, were 11.5% less likely.

What accounts for the difference? The researchers looked at several factors, but settled on one that appeared more obvious as they considered the question -- the length of time it took the ship to sink. As the report explains, on the Lusitania "the short-run flight impulse dominated behavior. On the slowly sinking Titanic, there was time for socially determined behavioral patterns to reemerge."

Put plainly, on the Lusitania the male passengers demonstrated "selfish rationality." As TIME explains, this is "a behavior that's every bit as me-centered as it sounds and that provides an edge to strong, younger males in particular. On the Titanic, the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children - in other words, good manners - had a chance to assert themselves."

Note carefully the assumption here that "the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children" are ascribed to "good manners" and "socially determined behavioral patterns." In other words, the male decision to give priority to the welfare of women and children is just a learned behavior, a social convention.

Is that all there is to it? There is a huge question looming in this -- is it right for men to act with care and concern toward women and children, or is this just an outmoded relic of Victorian morality?

What do modern feminists do with this? Those who stake their lives on the elimination of all meaningful gender distinctions must, if honest, take what they see on the Lusitania as the inevitable result of such a worldview. Are we really to believe that the moral call that makes men act against their own self-preservation is just a socially-constructed artifact of manners?

Aboard the Lusitania, young males acted out of a selfish survival instinct, and women and children were cast aside, left to the waves. Aboard the Titanic, there was time for men to consider what was at stake and to call themselves to a higher morality. There was time for conscience to raise its voice and authority, and for men, young and old, to know and to do their duty.

The Christian worldview based in Scripture explains this in terms of God's revelation of moral order within the structures of creation, and especially in what we call conscience. Even in our fallen state, this moral knowledge speaks to us, and there is a moral knowledge within us that calls us to do what we otherwise would never do -- even what is plainly not in our direct self-interest.

A secular worldview has little at its disposal to explain all this, and is left with some argument based in evolutionary survival behaviors or socially constructed morality. The feminists are in even worse shape in this. They call for a world like the Lusitania, but must hope against hope that the world is really more like the Titanic.

Women and children first. Civilization itself depends upon this kind of moral knowledge. Without it, the entire enterprise of human civilization is destined to sink beneath the waves.

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Sindya Bhanoo, "How the Men Reacted as the Titanic and Lusitania Went Under," The New York Times, Monday, March 1, 2010.

Jeffrey Kluger, "Titanic and Lusitania -- How People Behave in a Disaster," TIME Magazine, Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

Trey, Savage, and Torgler, "Interaction of Natural Survival Instincts and Internalized Social Norms: Exploring the Titanic and Lusitania Disasters," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 1, 2010. [Abstract only]

Pitchers and Catchers Report, Will Dads? Part II

David E. Prince — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:09:45 +0500

David E. Prince��

Pastor of Preaching and Vision
Ashland Avenue Baptist Church

Baseball is a sport of fathers and sons. When Willie Mays speaks of his dad teaching him how to walk when he was six-months old by enticing him with a rolling baseball he is telling the story of baseball. It is not uncommon for friends to ask me how I can continue to love the game in light of exorbitant salaries and the shame of the steroids era. My passion and love for the game did not begin in multi-million dollar parks with 40,000 seats and it cannot be taken away by what happens there. It began with my dad rolling a baseball to me at six months of age and grew with countless times of catch, ground balls, and batting practice with my father.�

The soil of little Joe Marshall Field in Montgomery, AL will always be more scared to me than Fenway or any other big league park. As we picked up balls after another round of hitting those conversations between father and son helped usher me form boyhood to manhood. My dad taught me important lessons like the vileness of the DH in baseball and many things far more important. I cannot separate those lessons from the game that provided a glorious context to learn them, nor would I want to. There is nothing free agency, steroids, or Major League scandals can do to take that away from me. Similar stories could be told by almost every true baseball fan. There is a reason grown men often cry when Field of Dreams ends with Ray playing catch with his dad.

I am excited about the start of another Major League Baseball season as our family follows the fortunes our beloved Atlanta Braves each day. But the start of the Major League season signals something far greater for me; Little League baseball games that will take play in every nook and cranny across the nation where someone can stick a baseball diamond. Those games will represent countless games of catch in the backyard between fathers and sons. It takes time, effort, diligence and never ending conversations to pass the game of baseball from one generation to the next. I fear that the diminishing popularity of baseball in recent years has less to do with the sport and more to do with the diminishing popularity of intentional fatherhood in our culture.

As a Christian father I try to remember to pray every time I drive past a little league baseball park. I thank God for fathers who are intentionally investing time in their sons and I pray that the game of baseball would remind Christian fathers that calling the next generation to hope in God (Psalm 78:5-7) works in a similar way. It takes time, effort, diligence and never ending conversations about God and His grace (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). My three sons have already developed a love for the game of baseball and can tell you why the DH is a perversion of the great game.

But I pray one day my sons will say they learned far more important lessons about the mystery of the gospel while we picked up balls, played catch, and watched every baseball game we could find. In fact, I hope they will say, "I cannot separate those eternally important lessons from the game that provided a glorious context to learn them, nor would I want to." Perhaps it is not so inexplicable why knowing pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training does something good for my soul.

(David Prince is a former high school baseball and football coach)

Pitchers and Catchers Report, Will Dads? Part I

David E. Prince — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:20:02 +0500

�

Snow recently covered a good portion of the country but I have not felt as warm and vibrant in some time. Pitchers and catchers report to MLB Spring Training mid-February and for some inexplicable reason that does something good for my soul. Like George Will, "baseball has been the background music of my life" and I have never tired of the tune. A new season of the national pastime is full of hope and glorious possibilities for every club and its fans.

Since 1846, when Alexander Cartwright took the Knickerbockers to play the New York Nine in the first game of organized baseball on the Elysian Fields in Hoboken, NJ the game has possessed an irresistible and rhythmic hold on our nation. Generations of Americans are linked because of what happened on that green field in New Jersey and has been happening on subsequent diamond stamped green fields ever since. Those fields have not simply preserved an enduring form of recreation but have helped promote vital traits which are fundamental to our health as a people.

"Without fathers, there is no baseball, only football and basketball" (Diana Schaub, "America at Bat," National Affairs). It was one of those lines that paralyzes you when you read it. As a former High School coach I began reflecting on just how true that sentence was in my experience. In football it was common for a young man with superior brawn or athletic ability to begin playing the game successfully at an older age with no background or former tutelage in the sport. Height alone can equate to some measure of basketball success at younger ages and skills can be honed in isolation with nothing more than a ball and a hoop. None of this is true with baseball. In most cases, the way a love of baseball is transmitted is through dads.

No boy will love and pass down the game of baseball simply because someone bought him a glove, ball, and bat. He cannot play catch with himself, hit himself ground balls, or throw himself batting practice. Much less will he ever figure out on his own what in the world a squeeze, sacrifice, infield fly rule, frozen rope, Texas leaguer, or balk means. The mechanics, mystery, nuance, and jargon of baseball demand that one has to be discipled in its craft and patiently taught its excellencies. Very little in baseball is seeker-friendly or self-evident and few people pick up the game on their own. Monday: Part II

(David Prince is Pastor of Preaching and Vision Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. He is also a former high school baseball and football coach)

Tebows Make the Wrong Choice for Planned Parenthood, NOW

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:59:20 +0500

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." (Prov. 14:12)

In the furor that erupted around the Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family SuperBowl commercial that celebrated life, one fact has become painfully clear, one that should shock and outrage all who view all human beings, regardless of age and proximity to the womb, as persons created in the image of God: abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood are not pro choice; they are pro-abortion. �

There is no other way to interpret Planned Parenthood's bewildering response to the ad which featured the former Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, and his mother Pam, and their now well-known story of the circumstances surrounding Tim's birth. Planned Parenthood responded with a video of its own featuring two professional athletes which may be viewed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/planned-parenthoods-tim-t_n_448535.html

At least one prominent feminist group, NOW-the National Organization for Women-demanded that CBS pull the ad from the air, placing CBS in its "Media Hall of Shame." Apparently, women such as Pam Tebow are not woman enough for NOW.

It is peculiar how Planned Parenthood, NOW and related groups have taken issue with Pam Tebow's choice. One wonders why the abortion advocacy organization fails to see the irony in its opposition to the ad: Pam Tebow made a choice and chose life. However, in the eyes of Planned Parenthood, Pam Tebow's choice apparently begged for a rejoinder. It could not be left to stand as a positive implementation of "choice." The common-sense conclusion that follows from PP's premises is unmistakable: Every pro-life decision by a woman is a poor choice, one that must be duly rebuffed. �How can this be interpreted as anything less than a pro-abortion view? One does not leave the PP video with the impression that the organization is going to be celebrating Tim Tebow's birthday each year.

But where does PP's logic lead? History helps us and it is not pretty. �It was precisely this perverse form of logic that led in the 1930s to the de-humanization of a particular group of people, a view that, in turn, fueled the ovens at Auschwitz and Treblinka with a goal of eradicating said sub-human group. Similarly, history of a more recent vintage tells the story of a modern-day holocaust that has, under the democratic-sounding rhetoric of "choice," exterminated more than 40,000 persons (and counting) since 1973-a group of persons branded sub-human. To no surprise, given the reality of Genesis 3, historic examples may be multiplied. Indeed, as Solomon wrote so well in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.

As if the video were not a sufficient mechanism to communicate its pro-abortion message, PP further clarified itself with a written statement on the Tebow ad. Carefully couching its language to applaud Pam Tebow for making a choice, any choice, but a choice nonetheless, PP smoothly sought to relegated the issue to that of "decisions women have to make about their health," while strongly condemning Focus on the Family as "anti-abortion" which, thankfully, it is. And, as if public opinion polls determine ethics, PP further upbraided FOF's pro-life message as archaic and out of touch with "mainstream America," which, when referenced by such groups as PP, may be interpreted as a synonym for a continuum that ranges, right to left, from Oprah to Sean Penn to Deepak Chopra. But if the issue is really about "choice" for PP, why not merely applaud Pam Tebow for making a courageous one? Why all the condemnatory language of Focus on the Family? If the undergirding presupposition is not the correctness of a pro-abortion stance, why is PP so exercised? Why does NOW not find a role model in Pam Tebow? Why is CBS shameful when it allows such a clear affirmation of life? Or is there a deeper and more pernicious agenda afoot? No doubt, there is.

One can sense a struggle to restrain a full-release of venom in the wording of PP's release, an excerpt of which reads:

"If Focus on the Family...has its way, millions of women would no longer be able to make important personal medical decisions for themselves and their families when it comes to abortion.� Focus on the Family's long-stated goal is to outlaw abortion except in rare cases when the woman's life is severely at risk. This is an extreme position, which would rob every woman of the ability to make important personal medical decisions for herself and her family. In addition to opposing a woman's ability to make important medical decisions for herself, Focus on the Family also opposes commonsense comprehensive sex education and life-saving stem cell research. The agenda of this organization is far outside the mainstream of American life."

PP's interpretation of polling data is debatable, but the reality that its message is thoroughly pro-abortion is not. The views of the athletes in the PP video has important implications for manhood, a topic Gender Blog will examine later this week.

CBMW Website

Jared Jenkins — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:10:02 +0500

Thank you for your prayers and patience

�

Dear friends of CBMW,

�

Approximately three weeks ago, it appears that someone hacked into our server and severely damaged the CBMW website.� Not only did this prohibit use of the site but is also kept us from even being able to send out a mass email to even explain the challenge we were facing to some of you.�

�

We have been working around the clock to fix the problem.� In addition to this, we moved our entire site to a different server that will give us access to more technical help in the future and will save us quite a bit of money as well.� I am deeply grateful for the people who helped us rectify the situation and enable us to once again serve you with material that will help your home and church.

�

I am also thankful for the many of you who were praying for us.� It looks like no information was lost in the process.� God bless you as you live out God’s glorious design for men and women�and thank you for your support of this critical work.

�

Blessings,

�

Randy Stinson

President

NewsNote: Masculinity in a Can, Fight Club at Church, and the Crisis of Manhood

R. Albert Mohler, Jr — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:53:37 +0500

[This post originally appeared on Dr. Mohler's�blog�on January 5, 2010.]

�

You do not have to look far to find evidence of the fact that males are in trouble in these confused and confusing times. On the university campuses, women undergraduate students outnumber young men by a clear margin -- 60% to 40%. A frightening percentage of young males are or have been behind bars, and the vast majority of young men are delaying their assumption of adult roles and responsibilities until well into their twenties or early thirties.

A crisis of fatherlessness marks the lives of millions of boys and young men, with boys growing up without fathers in the home now comprising a majority within some ethic groups and urban populations. At almost every grade level, boys are performing below girls, and are often left behind as girls go on to more advanced levels of learning. Then, adding insult to injury, reports from scientists indicate that both sperm counts and testosterone levels are falling among some boys and men -- blamed on anything from hormone supplements in the food chain to chemical contamination of ground water.

In many churches, young men and older boys are simply missing. The absence of young men ages 18 to 30 is just a fact of life in many congregations. Though this is especially acute in the mainline Protestant denominations, it is increasingly true of many evangelical churches as well.

One dimension of this problem is the difficulty of helping boys develop into manhood -- a responsible, healthy, and meaningful manhood. Put simply, many of the most significant man-making institutions of our society are either gone or in big trouble. Military service is now both voluntary and no longer male-only. Organizations like the Boy Scouts attract more opposition and fewer boys. Even as the Boy Scouts of America marks the organization's centennial this year, that proud American institution that shaped the lives of so many boys is marginalized and under attack.

Add the absence of fathers to all this and this society faces a challenge unprecedented in human history. A society cannot survive without a means of assisting boys to grow into responsible manhood. The same is true, of course, of the church -- only in the church the stakes are even higher.

An enlightening (and oddly odorous) illustration of this social problem comes from�The New York Times. Reporter Jan Hoffman tells of young boys now using "hypermasculine" products in order to demonstrate their masculinity and advertise their male identity -- largely through the smells they put off.

Hoffman tells of Noah and Keenan Assaraf, age 13 and 14 respectively, who live near San Diego, where daily "they walk out the door in a cloud of spray-on macho," according to their mom. The smell, she says, "drives me nuts." Even as marketers insist the products are intended for young males ages 18 to 26, the products have now "reached into the turbulent, vulnerable world of their little brothers, ages 10 to 14."

As Jan Hoffman explains:

Boys themselves, at a younger age, have also become increasingly self-conscious about their appearance and identity. They are trying to tame their twitching, maturing bodies, select from a growing smorgasbord of identities — goth, slacker, jock, emo — and position themselves with their texting, titillating, brand-savvy female peers, who are hitting puberty ever earlier.

And armies of researchers note that tween boys have modest disposable incomes, just fine for products that typically sell for less than $7.

“More insecurity equals more product need, equals more opportunity for marketers,” said Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University.

Insecurity seems to be a major motivating factor. Jake Guttenberg, a New York seventh grader, told the paper he uses one of these "deodorants" because, "I feel confident when I wear it."

Lyn Mikel Brown of Colby College was blunt in her assessment: "These are just one of many products that cultivate anxiety in boys at younger and younger ages about what it means to man up . . . to be the kind of boy they’re told girls will want and other boys will respect. They’re playing with the failure to be that kind of guy, to be heterosexual even.”

Interestingly, Hoffman reports that these products are often bought for boys by their mothers, "simply relieved that their sons are thinking about body odor." Just about any mom will nod in agreement at this point -- but where are the dads?

These boys are acting out what society is telling them -- urging them to be hypermasculine, hypersexualized, hyperconsumers. You don't have to consult with Karl Marx to be leery of the marketing of these products to preteen boys. You do not have to know these boys to be saddened that they, while understandably and naturally desire to grow up into manhood, think that "masculinity in a can" is the way to get there. Their desire to identify as masculine is natural and healthy -- even essential -- but the lack of real support in getting there leads them into confusion.

The New York Times�also offers evidence of the crisis of manhood in a second article, in which reporter R. M. Schneiderman takes readers into a world of "mixed martial arts" in some evangelical churches and ministries.

"The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility, he explains.

From his report:

In the back room of a theater on Beale Street [in Memphis], John Renken, 37, a pastor, recently led a group of young men in prayer.

“Father, we thank you for tonight,” he said. “We pray that we will be a representation of you.”

An hour later, a member of his flock who had bowed his head was now unleashing a torrent of blows on an opponent, and Mr. Renken was offering guidance that was not exactly prayerful.

“Hard punches!” he shouted from the sidelines of a martial arts event called Cage Assault. “Finish the fight! To the head! To the head!”

In order to reach young men, some churches are turning to mixed martial arts, defined as "a sport with a reputation for violence and blood the combines kickboxing, wrestling, and other fighting styles."

The main issue here is not the legitimacy of martial arts, but the fact that these churches are making a self-conscious effort to reach young men and boys with some kind of proof that Christianity is not a feminized and testosterone-free faith that appeals only to women.

Of course, Christianity honors the man who fights "the good fight of faith," and the most important fight to which a Christian man is called is the fight to grow up into godly manhood, to be true to wife and provide for his children, to make a real contribution in the home, in the church, and in the society, and to show the glory of God in faithfully living out all that God calls a man to be and to do. This means a fight for truth, for the Gospel, and for the virtues of the Christian life. The New Testament is filled with masculine -- and even martial -- images of Christian faithfulness. We must be unashamed of these, and help a rising generation of men and boys to understand what it means to be a man in Christ. The Christian man does not embrace brutality for the sake of proving his manhood.

This much is clear -- we are living in strange times, getting stranger by the minute. Churches and parents are right to be concerned about the new challenges of helping boys to grow into manhood. The crisis is real, and this one demands urgent attention.

Boys will never find real masculinity in a can, but boys and young men should find respect for and examples of genuine manhood at church. What about your church?

For Tebow, abortion is not political, but a matter of life and death

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:44:01 +0500

Perhaps like no other college athlete in history, Tim Tebow has lived in the glare of the media spotlight for the past four years. But in recent weeks, it has become clear that most of the media, for all of its veneration college football’s premier star, does not understand truly him. Perhaps clearest of all is this: the media does not understand his Christian faith and the kind of selflessness it requires.�

The latter is not exactly news, but it has become increasingly evident in the days leading up to SuperBowl XLIV in New Orleans. Focus on the Family will air an advertisement during pro football’s Emmy night that features Tebow and his mother, Pam. �It will tell of the circumstances of Tim’s birth: while pregnant with Time, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery through drinking water consumed onthe mission field; doctors told Pam that her child would likely enter the world with debilitating birth defects. They encouraged abortion. But the Tebows trusted God and gave birth a vigorous baby boy on Aug. 14, 1987. We now knows the rest of the story.

As one might expect, a firestorm of controversy has arisen surrounding Tebow and the commercial. In Monday’s USA Today, Tom Kratten maker, a thoughtful writer who recently published a book on sports and faith entitled “Onward Christian Athletes,” echoes the same refrain as much of his brethren in the secular media: Tebow has gone political with his faith. And he doesn’t like Tebow’s new team; Kratten maker called Dobson and Focus on the Family, “the embodiment of the staunch anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality politics that characterize the Christian right.” Further, the writer speaks of how his own tribe, the main stream media, has “deified” Tebow. The SuperBowl ad, he writes,provides� “a miraculous birth narrative to complete the deification of Tim Tebow.” Flag on the play: personal foul for unnecessary snarkiness. Krattenmaker is indignant that CBS would vet such an adfrom the “Christian right” and then allow its appearance as if only leftward-leaning viewpoints qualify under the First Amendment. But I digress. �This is merely one example among many and some are far more critical of Tebowand CBS.

The heart of the misunderstanding is not really so much about Tebow, but, is rather a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental reason why many evangelicals are staunchly pro-life. Tim Tebow is not politicking for the religious right, whatever that is; he is defending life out of a belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible which teaches that abortion is the high-handed, premeditated murder of a human being. For Tebow, this is about theology and not politics or winning a culture war. No, his motivation is not to further his career (infact, one wonders how this will play in the sometimes politically-correct world of pro sports) or to prepare to run for office or any such machinations. Tim Tebow simply knows what a man of God is called to do: he must stand between his family or those who cannot help themselves and protect them from the world, the flesh and the devil. This is what biblical Christianity teaches, it is what biblical manhood does in response, and it is part of a Gospel-centered life; it compels a man to risk life and limb and even a good name or lucrative profootball career to protect the weak, the innocent and those whom he loves forthe glory of God. It is what a sinless Savior did long ago “on a hill far away” in standing between His rebellious people and the wrath that their sins deserved.

That is what Tim Tebow is up to with the advertisement. Krattenmaker admits that Tebow has proven that he is made of warrior material: “Tebow has proved like few others the ability to withstand the heat and stay in the kitchen.” Indeed, but the stakes are far higher on this issue than most in the mainstream media will ever understand. For Tebow it is a matter of life and death. Stand strong, brother: “Be watchful, a stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

As Night Follows Day? (Part 3)

David Phillips — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:32:24 +0500

(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here. Parts one and two ran earlier this week on Gender Blog. In today’s final post, the author picks up with the fourth of five grounds for the veracity of the argument that the acceptance of women’s ordination by a church or denomination tends toward the affirmation of homosexuality.)

Fourthly, as Michael Vasey demonstrates, evangelicals are not immune to misreading Scripture in order to conform to their own desires or to the spirit of the age. There are increasing numbers of people claiming to be evangelical who are arguing publicly that the Bible has been misunderstood and it really supports homosexual conduct. Whatever the details we have seen an apparent instance of this over the summer. A vicar of a church in Chelmsford Diocese who after only a few months left his apparently evangelical parish after the uproar when he preached that homosexual practice is wrong. Likewise when Jeffrey John was appointed as Dean of St. Albans we found that some who claimed to be evangelical were not only unconcerned but apparently welcoming of the fact that he teaches that homosexual practice is acceptable. For myself I think the matter is so clear that anyone who can read the Bible as permitting such sin is not an evangelical because they have a distorted way of approaching Scripture.

Fifthly, the nature of the arguments used in favor of both are disturbingly similar. I have already mentioned the trumpeting of justice and equality. It ought to be sufficient to say that it cannot be just to encourage people to disobey the Word of the Lord, but apparently our ideas of justice trump His. Others argued that the ordination of women is a ‘gospel imperative’ and in the last few weeks this has been articulated again amongst the largest of the break-away Anglican churches in the US which now wants to ordain women and so follow the same disastrous route as the body they left. The argument is that without this change the gospel we preach will not be taken seriously. Not only is this nonsense, it suggests that the gospel is not the power of God unto salvation and it is exactly the same argument some use in favor of accepting homosexual practice.

Then there are spurious arguments about words. The interpretation of the word ‘head’ is the most celebrated. People became convinced that ‘head’ did not mean what Christians had previously thought it meant. Indeed I have heard it said that those of us who read it as such are ‘uneducated’. The ‘educated’ view is apparently that there are a couple of readings in ancient Greek where it means something different and therefore these must be the meaning in the Bible. I find it hard to credit that people can take such an argument seriously yet it seemed to sweep all before it. Now we are seeing the same thing with arguments about words in Romans or Leviticus concerning sexual immorality. Many seem convinced that the real sin of Sodom was anything but Sodomy. The arguments can sound clever, even bamboozle people, but they are feeble and so devoid of any real evidence that unless people were obsessed with proving their argument it is hard to see why they would give them any credence, but alas they do.

I believe the same can be said of other arguments. For example it is argued that Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to tell the disciples of the resurrection. She was thus sent and so can be called an Apostle (which means one sent). Therefore women can be presbyters. This is a string of non sequiturs - they do not follow logically from one another. Moreover, it ought to be obvious that the argument is wrong because it reaches a conclusion that is contrary to what Scripture actually teaches. If this sort of argument can be allowed it is hardly surprising to find others saying that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers and therefore homosexual practice is acceptable. The premise is wrong, the logic is wrong and the conclusion is wrong, but who cares so long as we can make the Bible say what we want it to say? The damage has been done because people have been encouraged to mishandle the Word of Truth.

Therefore, recognizing that many will be far from pleased with the conclusion, I am forced to say that the acceptance of the presbyteral ministry of women within a Church more or less inevitably leads to the acceptance of homosexual practice. I hope this is not so, but I fear it will be.

Nevertheless there is still hope, hope that some will see the mistakes and that enough remain to argue the case. But, if other churches are anything to go by, without the Lord’s intervention the outlook is bleak.

As Night Follows Day? (Part 2)

David Phillips — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:40:21 +0500

But is it fair to argue that the acceptance of one will lead to the acceptance of the other? What grounds are there for asserting this?

First, there are the facts of history. There are now too many cases to ignore – national denominations which have embraced the ordination of women which then went on to embrace homosexual practice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US is the most recent casualty which in August voted to permit sexual immorality amongst its clergy.

Secondly, the shift seems inevitable because unbiblical innovation necessarily leads to division. When pretty much all of Christendom has been united in saying that the Bible says one thing and then people start arguing that it says something different there are bound to be some who disagree.

Some inevitably will feel unable to remain when a Church seeks to legitimize what they believe to be error. It is well known that more than 20 members of the General Synod left the Church of England after the 1992 decision to ordain women as priests. In total more than 500 clergy left, although some later returned and a few may have used it as an excuse to get out with compensation. There were not a few members of Church Society among them. What was left was therefore weaker and more liberal. The same things happened years ago in the US Episcopal Church. Indeed most of the protestant, reformed, evangelicals left a generation or more ago often turning to Presbyterianism. Things are different in the Church of England because it is our national and established church so fewer people have left over recent decades but the general point is valid, the ordination of women in the Church of England has weakened the ‘conservative’ voice. Furthermore, the women so appointed are more likely to be liberal because a woman who accepts the classical evangelical or Anglo-Catholic position is not going to seek such a role.

Thirdly, the pressure from outside the Church increases. My experience, and I think that of others too, is that it is often outsiders who spot the flaws in our cherished ideas. Media interviewers are particularly good at this. Some in the church have elaborate arguments as to why Scripture does not say what it appears, but interviewers cannot see how this differs from arguments about sexual conduct, they are quick to see the gaps and pounce. In contrast when we stick doggedly with what the Bible actually teaches they may think we are mad (though they don’t usually say so on air) but they also see that we are being consistent. Moreover, they can see that whatever else might be said Christians through history have held both issues to be wrong.

The final part of this series will run on Friday.