On November 10, 1996 we recommended the book Brave New Schools, which has some excellent material in it about current problems with public education. Some have confirmed that the things described in the book are identical to what their children are facing.
To give an indication of the variety of subject matter covered, we selected and printed a few brief quotes, one of which mentioned the reaction of a fourth grader to a book by Lois Lowry, titled The Giver. Below is the quotation we published in that article:
Reaction to The Giver (the 1994 Newbery Medal winner): Stunned, Laura stared at her teacher. Would they really kill a baby if it didn’t weigh enough? The horrible image of the tiny infant, murdered and thrown down a chute like a piece of garbage, made her sick (135-36).
A lady e-mailed me recently, challenging the treatment that The Giver had received in Brave New Schools. Its author, Berit Kjos, was making the point that schools are presenting inappropriate material to students, and he referred to a teacher in Davenport, Iowa, who read The Giver to his fourth grade class. We agree wholeheartedly that the material in the book is not appropriate for this age group–especially without any explanation or discussion. The parent had a right to protest The Giver being used in such a manner. After all, there are so many books suitable for this age group. Personally, I would not recommend the book to anyone younger than the age of twelve.
Apparently, it was the upset fourth-grader’s mother who summarized The Giver for Kjos; she knows the story-line, but her concluding remarks are puzzling:
“The Giver desensitized students to the new values,” she told me. “Though the last part showed the downside, the book helped make the futuristic community seem normal. The children were free to form their own conclusions, but their conclusions would be based on biased information they were given” (138).
This paragraph does a disservice to Lois Lowry. There is not just a downside at the end of the book of the kind of society described; the theme of the entire story is to demonstrate the “downside” of this kind of emotionless society. All of the regulations in the story seem ÒnormalÓ to the people living in the community because they are not taught to question anything or to feel anything. Hence, they can murder an innocent life and continue with their daily activities as though nothing happened (What does this imply about the acceptance of abortion?). The story ends on the positive note of an attempt to CHANGE the horrible, nonchalant attitudes that exist there (ones that devalue human life).
The Giver has much to recommend it: it is well-written and thought-provoking (for older students). Our thanks to Maxine Moore for her e-mail message which took issue with Kjos’ reliance upon the fourth-grader’s mother’s evaluation of the book. The concerned but critical parent would probably have had an entirely different opinion of The Giver if her daughter’s teacher had explained the theme of the book and kept it in context. The story makes a powerful point.
Our Operating Philosophy
Although we are careful not to ever intentionally misrepresent anyone, a lack of omniscience occasionally allows such to happen. It is always a good idea to evaluate what one reads and see if it 1) squares with reality and 2) harmonizes with the Scriptures.
In the instance cited on the preceding page, the material presented in Brave New Schools squared with reality, and so far as we know was reliable–except in its evaluation of The Giver. In that instance, the author relied upon the evaluation of The Giver by a distraught mother, who had read the book but failed to perceive the author’s intent. In other words, Kjos took the mother’s word for it, and readers of Brave New School will end up relying upon this erroneous analysis, also.
A while back I read a book with some excellent material, which was well-documented. I was ready to recommend the book in print until I got to the last chapter. The author included Rush Limbaugh as a supporter of violence and various private militias. He even used a quote from his radio broadcast to substantiate his point. The only problem was that I had heard that particular broadcast and knew that the quote was taken out of context. It was a clumsy effort to lump Limbaugh in with some of the fanatics he had been describing.
The problem is that if he would treat one individual in this way (take his words out of context and try to pass him off as something he is not), then one must wonder how fairly the author treated the other people and groups he evaluated in his book. The rest of the material may be accurate, but this one error casts a reflection on all else that he wrote.
If we ever discover, as we did in this case, that anyone has been misrepresented in this publication, we will (as we have done here regarding Lois Lowry) make the appropriate correction. We have no reason to bend or twist things to make a spectacular point; the facts are usually pretty bizarre all by themselves.
Sometimes, people write or e-mail us taking issue with WHAT was said, but not with the accuracy of what was reported. We have often been accused of misrepresenting Max Lucado, but we have quoted from him and not taken him out of context. Most protests are based on an emotional attachment to him, not an objective analysis of his teachings. When discussions with his loyal fans center on the issues rather than personalities, they usually quit corresponding.
Our goal, when discussing current issues, is to deal with real problems and attitudes, not manufactured ones. Some people, like “Pastor” Melton, enjoy misrepresenting their adversaries, but we do not think that such practices reflect the spirit of Christ.
The Barrels Melted Down (Update)
Another reader called to our attention further information about the recent policy statement of the Catholic Church about homosexuality, which we discussed in “The Barrels Melted Down,” which we published on October 12th. All of the quotes used in that issue of Spiritual Perspectives were taken from an article, which appeared in several newspapers.
Although those quotations and comments were correct, there was more context than what the major stories revealed. According to an e-mail correspondent, the Catholic bishops were not trying to justify homosexuality, only homosexual orientation. One might wonder, “What’s the difference?” The following observations may make them easier to distinguish. [These were not published in any of the articles I read.]
While it [the report, GWS] urged acceptance of homosexual orientations, it continued to insist that sexual intercourse be limited to a man and wife within a marriage.
The bishops said multiple factors seemed to account for a homosexual orientation and said it was “generally…experienced as a given, not something freely chosen.”
“By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose,” the letter continued.
But it went on to underscore the importance of chastity as “a way of respecting personal dignity.”
Living and loving chastely, the bishops continued, meant that sexual intercourse was limited to marriage between a man and a woman.
It highlighted friendship as “a way of loving” and said friendship “outside of genital sexual involvement” should be an integral part of a homosexual person’s life.
Now if these comments have not cleared up the matter, here is the gist of what they are saying. Homosexuals cannot helping liking those of their own sex more than those of the opposite sex. This orientation should not be condemned. Only homosexual acts are wrong. The news story made it sound like these bishops were totally endorsing homosexuality.
HOWEVER, we still take issue with even this point. Although an individual might (for whatever reason) like those of his own gender better than the opposite one, it is still a choice. We know that it is a choice because the “orientation” can be changed (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If I were a homosexual reading this Catholic report, my question would be, “If the orientation is not sinful, why are homosexual acts sinful? If I didn’t choose to be what I am, how can I be condemned for acting on my feelings of orientation?” In other words, if the feeling is right, how can the expression be wrong?
So, even though the newspaper stories did not report the whole scope of what the U. S. Catholic bishops decided, it is still possible to take issue with much of what they wrote. In a sense, they have gone half the distance in accepting homosexuality. This acceptance of the “orientation” may only be a brief stop on the way to accepting sexual acts. It might also be considered an attempt to be compassionate toward the plight of the homosexual (his orientation) while rejecting the expression of those feelings.
The truly compassionate response would be to get them to change their orientation. In order to do so, one would have to analyze why that orientation exists (no, no one is “born that way”). How did the orientation develop, and how can it be changed? Some homosexuals who once thought they were “born that way” have been able to do exactly that; they have emerged from that orientation to a heterosexual one and become happily married–to a person of the opposite sex (one needs to specify these days).
If we are going to help people, we must get them as far away from sin as possible. It is not sufficient to merely avoid wrong actions; the heart (mental attitude) must also change (Matt. 15:18-20).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS (12/21/97).”