Children, Sexuality and Pedophilia

teacher and students

Sexual” is ambiguous. Christians may use the term to describe our sex: male or female. We may use the term to describe our procreative nature. But Alfred Kinsey, SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.) and others like them refer to children as being sexual” which, to them, means “capable of sexual activity.”

We are disregarding God’s created order when we say that “children are sexual.” Children are not “sexual” in the sense of being capable of sexual activity nor do they benefit from early libido. God does not mock His little ones by creating them with tendencies that would be harmful both physically and spiritually.

Kinsey wanted society to accept pedophilia as a natural act and believed that sex with children is a problem only because we have laws against it. The crimes of Kinsey who gathered data for his research from the sexual abuse of 317 infants and young boys by known pedophiles were exposed by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., in Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (also: Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence). Kinsey used his fraudulent statistics to convince the world that “children are sexual from birth.” This opened a Pandora’s Box of illicit sexuality.

Forms of sex education, based on Kinsey’s research, worked their way into state and parochial schools with the purpose of helping children learn about sex. Children began experimenting with sex at earlier ages with sure and certain consequences. By the 1980s, schools that didn’t have sex education welcomed it out of fear of AIDS. More recently, pro-sodomy groups have gained entrance into classrooms to encourage fellow “sexual beings” to express all manner of “sexuality” without fear of bullying. Slowly but steadily, attempts to break down the walls guarding children have been made since those with Kinsey’s worldview settled onto university campuses.

Anne Hendershott is a distinguished visiting professor at The King’s College in New York City. She writes,

It was only a decade ago that a . . . movement had begun on some college campuses to redefine pedophilia as the more innocuous “intergenerational sexual intimacy.”

The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreward by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers . . . but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

The redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed—an [sic] historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior. (Excerpt from “The Postmodern Pedophile” by Anne Hendershott in Public Discourse [A publication of The Witherspoon Institute], December 20, 2011.)

Public opinion that pedophilia is deviant behavior still remains. We should take note that even SIECUS does not currently promote pedophilia or incest even though its early officials did. However, as we see the barriers protecting childhood innocence removed in classrooms and society in general, groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) will push for “boy love” in every community claiming that child/adult sex is acceptable intimacy among generations.

So, the question arises: Does sex education help protect children from sexual abuse and predators? Lynette Burrows writes, “The increase in talking graphically about sex to children is essentially pedophilic in nature.” Lest anyone think her remark too sensational, let’s hear her out. She continues,

It is increasing the number of people who are allowed to “talk dirty” to children, and so to breach the protective armor of their innocence. Thus it is widening the scope for pedophiles to target children. Warning children with slimy disclaimers about “inappropriate touching” is simply token and meaningless to a child. How can they recognize the danger signals from those who wish to exploit them if such a large number of adults are implicated in the same “dirty talk”? (Excerpt from “Worst Sexualisation of Children is Happening in Schools” presented by Lynette Burrows to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children [SPUC] Safe at School “Sex Education as Sexual Sabotage” meeting in Westminster, London, 2011.)

Sex education in any classroom encourages children to talk about sex and sexually-related subjects in explicit terms with adults who are not their parents. This strips them of natural embarrassment and modesty which play an important role in protecting them from sexual abuse. Let’s also bear in mind that many of those trained or certified to teach sex education or family living have themselves been stripped of embarrassment and modesty in postgraduate degree programs developed by Kinsey followers and using Kinsey methods. The Christian should remember that embarrassment was a new emotion for Adam and Eve after their sin, but it was for their protection in a sinful world.

What does God say? Does His Word tell us that children are sexual from birth and that child-adult sex is normal? No, it does not. The culture desperately needs the Church to stand on the solid ground of God’s Word about children, the act of sex, and marriage.

For the sake of precious souls, we must resist evil even as we shed light in dark places.

This post is taken from Chapter Three of
The Failure of Sex Education in the Church:
Mistaken Identity, Compromised Purity
(Amazon) by Linda Bartlett.

Jesus Doesn’t Wrap Silly Myths

Jesus and little childrenWhen did God say, “Educate children in sex”?  I challenge you to find this passage in Scripture.  While you’re looking, you will find an opposing thought.  Parents are to train their children in purity.  The theme of purity is woven throughout Old Testament and New.

When our sons were in elementary school, I purchased a series of “sex education” books from a Christian publisher.  Something about them troubled me, so I put them on the shelf.  I found a better substitute — chivalry and more about biology than “sexuality”.  Of course, there was no substitute for the Bible.  I was amazed to see how much God had to say about training in purity.  I began to contrast God’s Word with “sex ed” textbooks and resources.  The teachings were world’s apart.

The question for me was this: Which worldview was best for children?  Some years later, speaking nationwide to teens and their parents, I realized why I had been uncomfortable with Christian-wrapped “sex ed” material.   Jesus does not wrap Himself around worldly ideas.

“Sex education” is not a Biblical teaching.  It is the idea of Alfred Kinsey who coined the phrase “children are sexual from birth.”  Too late, his criminal and fradulous research was exposed.  Opinions had been shaped — in education, media, and even courts of law.  If we define ourselves as “sexual” (with “needs” to be met), or “sexy” (“it’s our right”), then that’s how we’ll live.  Our Creator God defines us differently (Genesis 1:27):

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The first man and woman were made in God’s perfect image.  God defines Himself as “Holy.”  Therefore, God called the bearers of His image not to a “sexy” life, but to a holy life.  We all fell from perfection when sin corrupted God’s perfect image-bearers, but His original design for male and female did not change.  We are called and equipped by God to be holy (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).  Unlike animals, we are not captive to our sexual desires.  Our bodies (knitted together by God) and our lives (held in His arms) are not our own.  They were “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).  That price is the blood of Jesus Christ.  In Jesus, we are forgiven and set free to pursue what is good, right, and holy.

God created male and female, not to bring glory to themselves, but to Him.  We do this best when we realize that God does not define us as “sexy” or instruct us to call attention to ourselves; rather, He defines us as “holy” people who help our neighbors see God.

God’s Word says,

Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.  Rather, train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.  The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.  To this end we toil and strive . . .

This passage from 1 Timothy 4: 7-10a tells me that Jesus can’t be wrapped around unholy and “silly myths.”  It is impossible for Truth to wrap Himself around foolish and destructive philosophy and practice.  Certainly, as the passage above notes, we have to “toil and strive” because disconnecting ourselves from worldly influence is extremely difficult.  It threatens to sap the energy right out of the most persistent Christian.  Still, every father, mother, grandparent, pastor, teacher, and mentor is obligated by God’s Word to train children in purity.  To do otherwise is to remove the protective boundaries of modesty and send vulnerable children to wolves — big and bold or dressed in sheep’s clothing.

Jesus doesn’t wrap around modern sex education.  He can’t.  He is the Word of purity, modesty and humility.  For this reason, His Word tells elder brothers that they have the responsibility to guard the purity of their younger sisters (Song of Solomon 8:8-9).  If the little sister is a wall (virtuous), they are to help protect her chastity.  If she has fallen into sin and is like a door (swaying open to promiscuity and harmful choices), then they are to do what they can to rescue her, call her to repentance, and put a stop to her sinful behavior.

Jesus contrasts the world.  He is Light; the world is dark.  He is Truth; the world is myth and changing opinion.  Jesus, the Word, tells us: Do “not stir up or awaken love until it pleases” (Song of Solomon 3:5b).  We must not disregard the order that pleases God.  It is His design — for the good of all — that love be stirred, awakened, and fulfilled only in marriage between one man and one woman.

So, I challenge you to answer one question: Which practice is compatible with Jesus?

  1. Boys and girls brought together in a classroom, not to study anatomy, but to “ease inhibitions” and “comfortably” discuss all manner of “sexuality” (with caution to “wait” until marriage following graduation, college, and establishment of career); or,
  2. Boys and girls taught separately to honor God’s created order and complementary difference of male and female; mentored in Biblical manhood and womanhood; equipped for the battle with temptation; and age-appropriately helped to understand God’s design for procreation between one man and one woman in marriage.

Jesus is Truth.  Truth cannot wrap Himself around unholy and “silly myths.”  To protect children from wolves (big and bold or dressed as sheep), Jesus guards walls of virtue.  He rescues the hurt and repentant after doors have swung open.  He tells me to do the same.

This is the love of Him who holds young ones in such high esteem.

First posted 10-1-2010 in Ezerwoman