Woke in the WELS: An Honest Conversation about Sexuality: Video 4

   

[ Leaders' Guide | Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5 ]

And on to Video Four, where we are going to focus on one of the panelists. For the first three videos I tried to avoid this for a few reasons: first, I remember being in my late teens and having some pretty bad takes, secondly, we should really be holding Ben and Bill responsible for the content since they are moderating and producing this thing. In video 5 you can hear Bill off-camera guiding a discussion point - which changed my mind since this isn't just eavesdropping on some teens having a discussion, they are being actively guided to hit certain points, and in video 2 there were definite overtones of the youth 'getting it' in contrast with the older generations. So let us examine the wisdom of the youth.

We're going to focus on the woman in yellow, who I would guess based on her comments is studying to be an education major. Her comments are somewhat chilling, but I imagine common in her studies.

"I also feel like it's important to allow [young children] to ask the questions, and it's becoming much easier now because of all the representation that's being shown in pretty much any movie or TV show that you can watch even for young kids. And so not limiting what they see, like if you know that this movie has a homosexual couple in them, or like a kiss or something that they don't want them to see, that isn't something that you should limit them from because it allows them to see it and ask questions about it. And then you can approach it. But that way you're not necessarily forcing something on them that they don't understand that way they've seen it firsthand and can try to understand it in their mind. And if they don't, they can ask you. Or even if you take them to a movie, you can bring it up 'so this happened. do you have any questions?' 

This is a lovely opinion from a single woman who has not married or had kids, and I'd be curious when her kids are toddling around if she still holds to it. There are a range of ages where I think it is appropriate to protect your children from the world. As a young child, they are sponges of their environment and at that young age it is appropriate time to ground them in what is good, true and beautiful to give them something to anchor them so that as they get older and face the not-good, untrue and ugly they see it in contrast, for what it really is. This is the traditional view of classical education. 

"And I think I've seen a lot of parents who will be angry that different things are now starting to be taught in school, whether it's stuff about homosexuality or some people are even upset about, um, like race and transgender, all the different things."

Yes, because besides your viewpoint on the appropriateness of introducing homosexual media to young children, your interpretation of homosexuality, race and transgenderism might be colored differently than mine. 

"But I think that it's not going away. You need to make sure people know and are prepared for what they are going to see in the world and who they are going to meet and even be friends with. And if you're not starting that at a young age, you can make people bigots without meaning to."

Define 'bigot'? 

(The contrast "a lot of parents will be angry ... but I think you need" leads me to believe she is studying in education, and if so, these comments should be concerning to parents thinking about putting their kids in any school, even a WELS one.)

In the second round of discussions we return to the same young lady, who observes:

"And I think that it is important to get the context of why [LGBTQ+] are coming to you... in a way that I am struggling with this, I need help. Or are they coming to [you as] this is me, this is who I am, I want you to know, because I think you have very different reactions to those situations. In both situations, you should not do anything to make them feel like they are in the wrong for feeling that way."

Feelings are sacrosanct. She's probably learning SEL in her education curriculum.

"But in [the case of someone struggling] of like, I'm praying for you, I'm here for you. We'll get through this when they are struggling, would be a positive answer. But if someone is coming to you because they trust you, they love you, they want you to know this about themselves, and your response is I'm praying for you, we'll get through this - it's not the most loving response in the world." 

Her definition of love is faulty, then. Love for God is keeping His commandments (1 John 5:3), including the command He gave at the ascension that we would be His witnesses (Acts 1:8).  Affirming sin is the opposite of the kind of love a Christian is to have for their neighbor. The Christian witness to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31) would require us to call our neighbor to repentance if that's how we ourselves, as Christians, want to be treated.

Without being shown their need for Christ, no sinner is going to want to be called to repentance.

"So I think it is important to understand and read the room and know how you can still show them love without telling them that they are struggling and that they are in the wrong, if that's not the help they are looking for at that time."

Ben, of course, affirms the same later in the video.

The blind spot to LGBTQ+ sins is amazing. Recast this into any other sin and it sounds ridiculous:

"Show the child molester love without telling them that they are struggling and that they are in the wrong, if that's not the help they are looking for at that time."

"Show the wife beater love without telling them that they are struggling and that they are in the wrong, if that's not the help they are looking for at that time."