In midyear, 2011, the California legislature made law that the contributions of homosexual persons must be included in the teaching of history in public schools. Governor Brown signed the legislation. It is striking that sexual orientation should be singled out as a deliberate factor in the classroom. Will it be necessary to identify the sexual orientation of each person, so to gain the objectivity and fairness due each individual? Should the contributions of criminals, of housewives, of clergy, of any personal identification be singled out? We learned in school that there were persons who were homosexual in their orientation, principally in literature for us, but only if the genre, often poetry and fiction, related to the feature. I was assigned Lord Byron. His life was seen as racy, but my report was deliberately focused by me upon his poetry. There were others, of course. In more recent times there has been greater emphasis on the open story of Auden, and others. We tried to avoid sexual orientation in the evaluations of contributions in various fields, unless the author included it. The Christian manages the matter as both secular (so to accept the decision of the electorate), and moral, (so to accept the Scripture and God’s evaluation inferring tolerance from all sides).
With laws like those of California, forcing a minority life pattern arbitrarily on public education, it is little wonder that more persons are resorting to home schooling, or private schools for the education of their children. One of the large weaknesses of modern education is the omission of how families and communities may flourish in a modern manner of functioning in a technological age, and how an increased number of lifestyles are taken as appropriate to free societies. At this writing, information and appropriate conduct are not yet adequately provided in education to add a context felt to be discordant with traditional facts of the human condition – as practiced in what may be identified as an agricultural society. In the rural society style the family was better understood – seen as a team. Parents were warmly authoritative, not driving, but leading. There was love and responsibility. The children had meaningful chores, before and after school. I worked on a farm in summer; peddled papers and followed other work learning habits when home; was under the firm direction of my mother; and, held excellent relationships with adult persons. My home was poor, and blessed with concepts of values (even without personal religious faith) that included accepting others, in respect for shared life, and the like. When I was a lad rural context of life in wholesomeness held sway, even though concentration of populations was firmly under way. There were 130 million Americans. That has nearly tripled in my lifetime. Today the rural context has shifted so that the concept of country life has become suburban in nature, not fully related to the great mass of youth that possess the city, where youth style is set. That style, mimicking adult life includes sex, various drug systems, party life, odd cultures and delayed maturity – or offering a false maturity. Something is lost to the human life experience and a sense of belonging to our country. We are flirting with fragmentation.
Variety is apparent in every venue. It appears in governments, in religions, in lifestyles, in objectives – and so on and so on. Youth groups tend to increase in variety, and some punish outsiders. It has recently been reported, in the general news, that two students posing in the Tebowing position (kneeling on one knee and placing a hand to the bowed head as in prayer) were beaten up following a high school game. We have not heard of anyone suffering for spiking a ball, for jumping up and rolling the ball over the goal post, or celebrating in other ways, sometimes crudely. Education needs to address the whole business of social compromise for management – learning how to respect persons of good will, and honoring the best in them. The current feeling implies that whatever emerges is better to whatever else there may be. That is not permitted in some contexts, but is permitted in others. The erratic approach will not create the effective compound society. In a democratic society there is toleration under law, which does not demand approval. Approval is God’s affair. Acceptance which is not necessarily agreement is mine. Appeal for better things is duty and privilege. Our concerns are physical and spiritual. Tolerance is aided when we deal with ideas and societies without relating them to genders, styles, wealth, race or any other than a righteous context. We must remember that public acceptance does not mean approval. Tolerance and acceptance are found in the life of Jesus so he could get on with his main purpose for the gospel. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020