Perspectives on Thanksgiving Day

So maybe you know that Abraham Lincoln issued the first presidential Thanksgiving proclamation in October 1863, when the outcome of the Civil War and his re-election remained very much in doubt. Whether or not you know the official origins of the Thanksgiving holiday, take a minute to appreciate this selection from Lincoln's vivid words:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. . . . No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

However, you probably know less than you think about the true origins of Thanksgiving, whether celebrated by the Pilgrims and Native Americans or codified by presidential proclamation. For example, do you know that Thanksgiving was not formally connected to the Pilgrims until the 1930s? President Herbert Hoover said, "We approach the season when, according to custom dating from the garnering of the first harvest by our forefathers in the New World, a day is set apart to give thanks even amid hardships to Almighty God for our temporal and spiritual blessings."

And today we often lament the commercialization of Thanksgiving, especially as Black Friday specials creep back into Thursday. But did you know that in the middle of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt temporarily moved Thanksgiving forward one week to make the Christmas shopping season longer and bolster the nation's struggling retailers? Turns out consumerism is a durable American tradition, too.


by Collin Hansen serves as editorial director for The Gospel Coalition. He is the co-author of A God-Sized Vision: Revival Stories That Stretch and Stir. He and his wife belong to Redeemer Community Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and he serves on the advisory board of Beeson Divinity School. You can follow him on Twitter.

Finding Our Lost Boys: Up to 90 percent of boys will leave the church. What can a congregation do?

The church today faces one of the greatest challenges in Christian history: the mass exodus of boys (and men) from the church. Seventy to ninety percent of all boys will leave the church. Most won't come back. That exit is part of a larger cultural story about our boys.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, many parents and educators grew increasingly frustrated with the gap between boys and girls in school. Boys excelled in almost every area over girls. Because more boys attended college than girls, it gave them an advantage over women in the workplace.

In response to that crisis, the U.S. Government invested over 100 million dollars to give girls equal

opportunities and extra attention in schools. In the span of a generation, concerned parents, educators, and the government collectively changed the storyline of girls (and women) in our culture. Though there's still work to be done, a tremendous amount has been accomplished. Girls and women have excelled in areas of life once seen as the exclusive domain of men. As the father of a focused, career-minded, want-to-change-the-world daughter who has a master's degree from London and a law degree from the University of Minnesota, I'm grateful for that change!

But now we face a different challenge. Our boys have been left in the dust. They now lag significantly behind girls in many areas of education, economics, and career. Many boys have no clear idea of what it means to be a man in this new world of equality. While we are able to tell girls a better story about themselves, now it's the guys who are confused about their place in the world. The result is that we're raising a generation of "lost boys," many of whom have no idea what it means to be a man in the church or in culture.

The quest for boys

I have two children: my firstborn, a daughter, and my second, a son. I am also a grandfather of a granddaughter and two grandsons (so far). I have some experience raising both boys and girls. In raising my two children, I recognized their differences not only as a female and a male but also as two unique personalities. It wasn't until recently, however, that I began to understand and appreciate the inherent differences between the sexes. Looking beyond the egalitarian/complementarian conversation (so loaded these days), there are real differences apparent in childrearing—of hormones, interests, and views of the world. Boys and girls are different.

I've been a pastor since 1984. Like the overwhelming majority of church leaders, I used the discipleship tools available through Christian publishing companies for our youth. Most of them did not cater specifically to boys or to girls but offered mixed-gender programs. I didn't think twice about it. I did subconsciously recognize the differences in the ways boys and girls learned when I taught confirmation to seventh graders for the first time as a student pastor. But other than that, I never gave any thought to the differences between boys and girls and what that might mean for their discipleship.

In 2005, I read David Murrow's book Why Men Hate Going to Church. It was a no-holds-barred look at how the church has skewed ministry to the way many women learn and respond, but that as a result, men are staying away en masse. David argues correctly that while men still fill most pulpits, women overwhelmingly fill the pews. Subtly and not so subtly, we have positioned the gospel to speak to the learning and worship styles of women, but we've lost our men.

David's book forced me to look at my own ministry. And I saw a lot of things, obvious and not so obvious, that favored the stereotypical woman over the stereotypical man. For example, the vision statement I had written for our congregation used lots of relationship and community language versus action language/images, which often appeals more to women in our culture. So I rewrote our mission statement, making it action centered: "The mission of Community of Grace is to follow Jesus on the bold, daring, reckless adventure of bringing grace to the world."

We reviewed the worship choruses we were using and nixed those that sounded like Top 40 love songs to Jesus. (I actually liked many of these songs because I understood what they were saying. But when I looked at the lyrics from the perspective of a man who perhaps had little or no Christian background, the words made me cringe: "Hold me close, let your arms surround me," "I am so in love with you," "Beauty that made my heart adore you," and "You're altogether lovely." Men don't generally speak, let alone sing, like this to other men. As David writes, imagine the mental gymnastics men have to go through while singing those songs to Jesus.) I rethought the way I talked about Jesus and moved away from a "Jesus wants a relationship with us" type message to include "Jesus calls us to follow him" language.

David spoke at a worship service early in our congregation's history. In eight minutes—because testosterone-charged men aren't wired to sit for long sermons—he talked about how Sunday school tends to be stacked against boys. Sunday school usually demands sitting still for long periods of time, which boys are not usually inclined to do. It involves reading out loud, which boy brains don't do as well as girl brains at young ages. Boys have difficulty reading in front of the class and therefore find themselves embarrassed if the girls laugh at them. Girls excel in that environment, and boys know it. Before long, boys see Sunday school as girly. It's little wonder that they end up leaving the church as soon as they can.

I immediately met with our Sunday school leaders. We separated the third through sixth grade boys from the girls of the same age, and I began writing the lessons for the boys, which included lots of activity and action-based learning. We saw an almost immediate impact in three areas:

1. Men, who are often reluctant to get involved in children's ministry, volunteered to teach the Sunday school boys—and enjoyed it.

2. Boys started attending Sunday school again (at one point we had more boys than girls). And they enjoyed it.

3. Boys and girls benefitted as they felt freer to talk about their "stuff" without the other sex present to bug or embarrass them.

Inspired by the results, I kept learning. I began to read books about how boys and girls learn, which led me to Michael Gurian, the New York Times best-selling author of books like The Wonder of Boys; The Minds of Boys; The Purpose of Boys; and Boys and Girls Learn Differently. Michael uses brain science research to enable us to better understand how boys and girls learn. His Gurian Institute has helped teachers and school districts around the country transform the way they teach boys and girls. I sent him an e-mail one day to see if he might be willing to do for our congregation what he had been doing for schools. He responded almost immediately, and we formed a friendship and partnership.

Michael comes from a Jewish background and knows from personal experience the power of rites of passage, like the Jewish bar mitzvah. At that point, our congregation had no confirmation-type program. In over 28 years of ministry, I had never found a confirmation program that I felt really discipled the students. Confirmation tends to pour theology, church history, and church polity into the students. But calling students to follow Jesus into noble manhood or dynamic womanhood and equipping them with the practical skills to do so didn't exist in any of the programs.

So Michael and I did something bold. We created a Christian rite of passage for junior high boys based on brain science research, rites of passage insights, mentoring (done primarily by the dads, and using the program to disciple dads as well), and the call of Jesus to follow him. Again, we saw an immediate impact.

It caught on in a big way. The boys were engaged. Each week the dads told me their sons loved coming. How often do we hear boys excited about church? The dads were learning along with their sons about what it means to be a man who follows Jesus (because many of these dads were never strategically called into Christian manhood), and dads were given the tools and opportunities to mentor their sons. So far, I've lead four groups of dads and sons through the rite of passage program, and each time I've been amazed at the impact. Boys and dads long to be heroic men.

A new movement led by the church

At the end of our rite of passage, we honor each boy in front of the congregation. We only honor one boy per service to make it memorable for him. As a part of the ceremony, we pray for him, bless him, and give him a Bible. As a symbol of manhood and faith being passed from one generation to the next, I hand the Bible to dad who then hands it to his son.

One Sunday, I had the privilege of presenting a set of twins to the congregation. Near the end of their ceremony I handed a Bible to their great grandfather, who passed it to his son (their grandfather), who passed it to his son (their dad), who passed it to his sons. I then said to the congregation: "I present to you Danny and Nate, men of God!"

That's a picture of what it looks like when parents, families, and congregations partner together to stop the exodus of boys from church and forge them into men. Imagine congregations across the country equipping their boys to follow Jesus into heroic manhood. We can change the storyline of our boys. We can change the world. Let's do it.

Reclaiming Boys: 5 Things Your Congregation Can Do

What might it look like for your congregation to stop the exodus of boys?

1. Learn all you can about boys. Commit to becoming boy experts—experts in how God has created them in the male side of his image, experts in how their brains work, experts in how they speak and learn.

2. Call out the hero in your boys. Boys in puberty surge with testosterone, find it difficult to stay put, but are excited to tackle challenges. Create a challenging, but secure environment where your boys can learn that they are God's beloved sons, and that he is fully pleased with them.

3. Give your boys a compelling vision for manhood. Jesus sets the stage for this vision by calling boys to follow him.

4. Strategically raise your boys into men. Since the beginning of time, cultures have understood the need for the men of the tribe to lead the boys through a rite-of-passage experience. We need to reclaim that strategic experience for our boys, and mark when they pass from boyhood to manhood.

5. Call and equip your men to mentor boys. Men make boys into men.

From Leadership Journal by Tim Wright, pastor of Community of Grace in Peoria, Arizona. He is the author of Searching for Tom Sawyer: How Parents and Congregations Can Stop the Exodus of Boys from Church (WestBow Press) and is the co-author, along with Michael Gurian, of two rites of passage programs: Following Jesus: A Heroic Quest for Boys and Following Jesus: A Journey of Wisdom for Girls. www.TimWrightMinistries.org, www.twitter.com/SearchTomSawyer, tim@faceofgrace.org

God's Word in Two Words

Christians often wish that God would speak the way that he used to speak to his people—audibly, says there is a complete mystery, impossible to understand.

through burning bushes, dreams, and doves descending from the sky. That way, it would seem so much easier to discern what he is saying. Today, most Christians agree, the main way God speaks to his people is through the Bible. For too many, though, what he

It doesn't have to be.

Many people read the Bible as if it were fundamentally about us: our improvement, our life, our victory, our faith, our holiness, our godliness. We treat it like a disconnected series of timeless principles that will give us our best life now, if we simply apply them. We read it, in other words, as if it were a heaven-sent self-help manual. But by reading the Bible this way, we—like the two companions on the road to Emmaus—totally miss the point. As Luke 24 shows, it's possible to read the Bible, study the Bible—even memorize large portions of the Bible—and miss the main point of the Bible. In fact, unless we go to the Bible to see Jesus and his work for us, even devout Bible reading can become fuel for our own self-improvement plans, a source for the help we need to conquer today's challenges and take control of our lives.

God's goal in speaking to us in the Bible is profound, but not complicated. In fact, we can say that all of God's Word comes to us in two words. And if we are going to understand the Bible rightly, we have to be able to distinguish properly between these two words.

Different Job Descriptions

The Protestant Reformers were all in agreement that all of God's Word comes to us in two forms of speech: law and gospel. The law is God's word of demand, and the gospel is God's word of deliverance. The law tells us what to do, while the gospel tells us what God has done. If you pick up your Bible and turn to any page, you're going to find one of two things: either a passage that demands something from you (law), like "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12), or a passage that delivers something to you (gospel), like "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16, ESV). Everything in both the Old and New Testaments comes in one of these two forms. "Hence," wrote Martin Luther, "whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between the law and the gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture."

Obviously, both God's law and God's gospel come from God, which means both are good and necessary for us to hear. But they do very different things. This distinction may seem irrelevantly abstract—something that would fascinate only the theologian or linguist—but serious life confusion happens when we confuse law and gospel, when we fail to understand their unique job descriptions. John Calvin's protégé, Theodore Beza, went so far as to say, "Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."

So what are the "job descriptions" of God's two words? Let me answer by way of illustration.

My wife and I have three children: Gabe (18), Nate (16), and Genna (12). In order for us to function as a community of five in our home, rules need to be established. Laws need to be put in place. Our kids know that they can't steal from each other. They have to share the computer. Since harmonious relationships depend on trust, they can't lie. Because we have three cars and four drivers, our sons can't simply announce that they're taking one of the cars. Each has to ask ahead of time. Rules are necessary. But telling them, over and over, what they can and cannot do won't change their hearts or make them want to comply.

When one of our kids (typically Genna) throws a temper tantrum, thereby breaking one of the rules, we can send her to her room and take away some of her privileges. But while this may rightly produce sorrow at the revelation of her sin, it does not have the power to remove her sin. In other words, the law can crush her, but it cannot cure her—it can kill her, but it cannot make her alive. If Kim and I don't follow up the law with the gospel, Genna would be left without hope—defeated but not delivered.

In Romans 7, the apostle Paul makes it clear that the law illuminates sin but is powerless to eliminate sin. That's not part of its job description. It points to righteousness but can't produce it. It shows us what godliness is, but it cannot make us godly. The law can inform us of our sin, but it cannot transform the sinner. Only the gospel can do that. As Luther said, "Sin is not canceled by lawful living, for no person is able to live up to the Law. Nothing can take away sin except the grace of God."

The law is God's first word, but the gospel is God's final word. The gospel alone is "the power of God unto salvation," which means that the law forces us to face our sin, but only the gospel can forgive us our sin. The law accuses us, while the gospel acquits us. The law exposes, but only the gospel exonerates. The law may curtail bad behavior, but only grace can transform the heart.

The law, to paraphrase Luther, is a divinely sent Hercules sent to attack and kill the monster of self-righteousness—a monster that continues to harass the redeemed. Christians, in other words, need the law to regularly reveal that we are worse off than we think. We need to be reminded that there is something to be pardoned even in our best works and proudest achievements.

But then, once we are recrushed by law, we need to be reminded, in the words of an old hymn, that "there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins, and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains." We need to hear that the sins we cannot forget, God cannot remember, or as another old hymn puts it, that "though th' accuser roar, of ills that I have done, I know them well and thousands more; Jehovah findeth none." We need to hear over and over that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, that nothing can separate us from God's love, and that Christians live their lives under a banner that reads, "It is finished."

Cheap Law

Christians who talk a lot about grace are thought to have a low view of God's law. Correspondingly, those with a high view of the law are thought to be legalists. But the late Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen says this gets the matter backwards: "A low view of the law always produces legalism; a high view of the law makes a person a seeker after grace." This is because a low view of the law encourages us to conclude that we can keep it—the bar is low enough for us to jump over. A low view of the law makes us think that its standards are attainable, its goals reachable, its demands doable.

A high view of the law, however, demolishes all such confidence. It leaves us no room for supposing that God supplies helpful tips for practical living, rather than demanding absolute perfection. We'll always be suspicious of unconditional grace as long as we think our own moral efforts are sufficient. Only an inflexible picture of what God demands reveals the depth of our ongoing need for the gospel.

This means that, contrary to what some Christians would have you believe, the biggest problem facing the church today is not "cheap grace" but "cheap law"—the idea that God accepts anything less than the perfect righteousness of Jesus. Essayist John Dink writes, "Cheap law weakens God's demand for perfection, and in doing so, breathes life into the old creature and his quest for a righteousness of his own making. . . . Cheap law tells us that we've fallen, but there's good news, you can get back up again. . . . Therein lies the great heresy of cheap law: it is a false gospel. And it cheapens—no—it nullifies grace."

Only when we see that the way of God's law is absolutely inflexible will we see that God's grace is absolutely indispensable. A high view of the law reminds us that God accepts us on the basis of Christ's perfection, not our progress. It reminds us, then, to seek deliverance only in the gospel. In other words, a high view of the law produces a high view of grace. A low view of the law produces a low view of grace. God's good law reveals our desperation; God's good gospel reveals our deliverer. We are in constant need of hearing both.

Little-L Law

When talking about "the law," we need to know the difference between what I call "big L" law and "little L" law. Big-L law is what I've been writing about so far. It comes from God and is outlined in the Ten Commandments, reiterated in the Sermon on the Mount, and summarized by Jesus as the command to "love the Lord with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength" and "love our neighbor."

But there's another law (little-L) that permeates daily life. Paul Zahl, in his wonderful little book Who Will Deliver Us?, writes that "law with a small L . . . is any voice that makes us feel that we must do something or be something to merit the approval of another. . . . In the Bible, the Law comes from God. In daily living, law is an internalized principle of self-accusation. We might say that the innumerable laws we carry inside us are bastard children of the Law."

You're familiar with this kind of "law," even if you've never described it that way. It comes in the form of internal "musts."

The "oughts" of life are numerous. You feel them every day: infomercials promising a better life if you work at getting a better body, a neighbor's new car that you can't afford, a beautiful person you can't hope to compare to, the success of your more talented coworker. All of these things have the power to communicate, "You're not enough." Maybe you feel that you have to be on top of everything if you're going to make it; that you have to infallibly parent your kids if they're going to turn out okay; that you have to control what others think about you if you're going to get respect; or that you have to be successful to satisfy a deep desire for parental approval.

Not long ago, I was driving down the road near my house, and I passed a sign in front of a store that read, "Life is the art of drawing without an eraser." Meant to inspire drivers-by to work hard, live well, and avoid fretting over possible mistakes, it instead served as a booming voice of little-L law: "Don't mess up. There are no second chances. You better get it right the first time."

How do we deal with these ruthless musts and demands? Is there any hope?

At least twice in the past year, I've been late for a meeting or an appointment and haven't been able to find my car keys. Certain that either my wife or one of my children had misplaced them, I've frantically run from room to room assigning blame. "Who was playing with my keys? I put them right here on the counter and now they're gone. They didn't just vanish into thin air! Who picked them up? Where are they? I'm late." And right when I'm about ready to order mass executions, I walk into my bedroom one last time to look (huffing and puffing, moaning and groaning), put my hand in my pocket, and find my keys. They'd been there the whole time.

Every time I tell that story, people laugh. And rightfully so. Who frantically looks for car keys that are in his pocket? Me. That's who.

The truth is, we all typically live this way: frantically and frustratingly searching for something we already have. The gospel is God's good news announcement that everything we need we already possess in Christ. Because of Jesus' finished work, Christians already have all of the justification, approval, significance, security, freedom, validation, love, righteousness, and rescue that we desperately long for, and look for in a thousand things infinitely smaller than Jesus. When we work so hard to appease those little-L judges, we forget that the big-L judge—almighty God—has already been appeased in Christ. We allow our internal voice, one that constantly says, "Do this and live," to drown out the external voice that shouts, "It is finished!"

The Work of the Redeemer

Before God's holy law and our own personalized laws, we are judged and rightly found wanting. I am not the follower of Christ that I ought to be, nor am I the father, husband, pastor, or friend I should be. I wish I could say I do everything for God's glory. I can't. Neither can you. What I can say is that Jesus' blood covers all my efforts to glorify myself. I wish I could say Jesus fully satisfies me. I can't. Neither can you. What I can say is Jesus fully satisfied God for me.

If law were the one word of God—if the Bible were basically a book of instructions—we would be doomed. Jesus announced that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled all of God's holy conditions so that our relationship to him could be wholly unconditional. The primary message of the Bible, then, is this: The law-maker became the law-keeper and died for me—the law-breaker.

The Bible is one long story of God meeting our rebellion with his rescue, our sin with his salvation, our guilt with his grace. The overwhelming focus of the Bible is not the work of the redeemed but the work of the Redeemer. Which means that the Bible is not first a recipe book for Christian living, but a revelation book of Jesus, who is the answer to our un-Christian living.

Article is from 8.29.13 Christianity Today by Tullian Tchividjian who is senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He is the author of the forthcoming One Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World (David C. Cook).

The War on Boys: School Has Become Hostile to Boys and Why That Spells Big Trouble

As school begins in the coming weeks, parents of boys should ask themselves a question: Is my son really

welcome? A flurry of incidents last spring suggests that the answer is no. In May, Christopher Marshall, age 7, was suspended from his Virginia school for picking up a pencil and using it to “shoot” a “bad guy” — his friend, who was also suspended. A few months earlier, Josh Welch, also 7, was sent home from his Maryland school for nibbling off the corners of a strawberry Pop-Tart to shape it into a gun. At about the same time, Colorado’s Alex Evans, age 7, was suspended for throwing an imaginary hand grenade at “bad guys” in order to “save the world.”

VIDEO CLIP

In all these cases, school officials found the children to be in violation of the school’s zero-tolerance policies for firearms, which is clearly a ludicrous application of the rule. But common sense isn’t the only thing at stake here. In the name of zero tolerance, our schools are becoming hostile environments for young boys.

Girls occasionally run afoul of these draconian policies; but it is mostly boys who are ensnared. Boys are nearly five times more likely to be expelled from preschool than girls. In grades K-12, boys account for nearly 70% of suspensions, often for minor acts of insubordination and defiance. In the cases of Christopher, Josh and Alex, there was no insubordination or defiance whatsoever. They were guilty of nothing more than being typical 7-year-old boys. But in today’s school environment, that can be a punishable offense.

Zero tolerance was originally conceived as a way of ridding schools of violent predators, especially in the wake of horrific shootings in places like Littleton, Colo. But juvenile violence, including violence at schools, is at a historic low. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2011, approximately 1% of students ages 12 to 18 reported a violent victimization at school. For serious violence, the figure is one-tenth of 1%. It does no disrespect to the victims of Columbine or Sandy Hook to note that while violence may be built into the core of a small coterie of sociopathic boys, most boys are not sociopathic.

On the other hand, millions of boys are struggling academically. A large and growing male cohort is falling behind in grades and disengaged from school. College has never been more important to a young person’s life prospects, and today boys are far less likely than girls to pursue education beyond high school. As our schools become more risk averse, the gender gap favoring girls is threatening to become a chasm.

Across the country, schools are policing and punishing the distinctive, assertive sociability of boys. Many much-loved games have vanished from school playgrounds. At some schools, tug of war has been replaced with “tug of peace.” Since the 1990s, elimination games like dodgeball, red rover and tag have been under a cloud — too damaging to self-esteem and too violent, say certain experts. Young boys, with few exceptions, love action narratives. These usually involve heroes, bad guys, rescues and shoot-ups. As boys’ play proceeds, plots become more elaborate and the boys more transfixed. When researchers ask boys why they do it, the standard reply is, “Because it’s fun.”

According to at least one study, such play rarely escalates into real aggression — only about 1% of the time. But when two researchers, Mary Ellin Logue and Hattie Harvey, surveyed classroom practices of 98 teachers of 4-year-olds, they found that this style of play was the least tolerated. Nearly half of teachers stopped or redirected boys’ dramatic play daily or several times a week — whereas less than a third reported stopping or redirecting girls’ dramatic play weekly.

Play is a critical basis for learning. And boys’ heroic play is no exception. Logue and Harvey found that “bad guy” play improved children’s conversation and imaginative writing. Such play, say the authors, also builds moral imagination, social competence and imparts critical lessons about personal limits and self-restraint. Logue and Harvey worry that the growing intolerance for boys’ action-narrative-play choices may be undermining their early language development and weakening their attachment to school. Imagine the harm done to boys like Christopher, Josh and Alex who are not merely discouraged from their choice of play, but are punished, publicly shamed and ostracized.

Schools must enforce codes of discipline and maintain clear rules against incivility and malicious behavior. But that hardly requires abolishing tag, imposing games of tug of peace or banning superhero play. Efforts to re-engineer the young-male imagination are doomed to fail, but they will succeed spectacularly in at least one way. They will send a clear and unmistakable message to millions of schoolboys: You are not welcome in school.

From Time Magazine August 19, 2013 By Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

A Civilization Where ‘Few Men Are Left’

“The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left” (Isaiah 24:5-6).

This is a picture of the world in its end stages, after years of devil-may-care living and breaking “the everlasting covenant” of creaturely obedience to the Creator. It could, of course, describe the last gasps of any particular civilization: Noah’s, the Canaanites’, the Roman Empire’s, America’s. But these cyclical demises are all dress rehearsals for the big final upending of the earth that lies ahead, that cosmic shaking that will remove all sin and causes of sin.“Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens” (Heb 12:26).
 
Isaiah talked about it 700 years before the author of Hebrews was a twinkle in his mother’s eye, in images that remind me of a clunker car that one has jury-rigged one too many times but that finally keels over:

“For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble. The earth is utterly broken, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunken man; it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again” (Isaiah 24:18-20).

My attention is arrested by the last element of the description of a doomed earth, in verse 6: “and few men are left.” I had once assumed it to be a numerical reference, a prediction of population decline—perhaps as a result of war, or disease. But current events have opened up another possibility: Perhaps “few men are left” may be paraphrased as “few real men are left.”

Do the radio commercials tell it all? What does it mean about a culture when ads pitched to men are increasingly about whiter teeth and dieting and hormone enhancement, and when commercial advertising is constantly based on the “dumb male” premise?

Over at The American Spectator, Daniel J. Flynn has a fresh take on an over-baked subject: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. It makes Isaiah’s very point that “few men are left”: “They don’t make men like they used to.” Flynn called the Zimmerman-Martin case “a tragedy involving two men fumbling in the dark on how to be men. … Whatever the protagonists may be guilty of, they are surely innocent of being men.”

Of the young demographics represented by Martin, he writes, “Rarely, in spite of their exaggerated masculine posturing, do teenage boys behave as mature males.” Of Zimmerman and his ilk, Flynn writes, “One wonders if the cage-fighting classes, the pursuit of a career in law enforcement, and a firearm kept ready to fire were Zimmerman’s ways of discovering his elusive manhood in a manner akin to Trayvon’s tattoos, coarse language, and demonstrative drug use.”

The verdict is in on two males in a celebrated Florida case, but not on manhood in America. One is left pondering the words of a prophet long before our time who perhaps wrote better than he knew when foretelling that the mark of the end would be a civilization in which “few men are left.”

from World Magazine,  July 22, 2013 by Andrée Seu Peterson

Two Males, No Men

They don’t make men like they used to. One can consult a Danish study that shows plummeting testosterone levels for scientific confirmation of this. Or, one could more easily turn on any cable news network’s wall-to-wall coverage of the Zimmerman-Martin case, a tragedy involving two males fumbling in the dark on how to be men.

Whatever the protagonists may be guilty of they are surely innocent of being men. The six female jurors, not tasked to reach a verdict on the manhood of the central players, nevertheless know the truth of this more than other trial observers. The Venusians know the Martians better than they know themselves. And vice versa — what do they know of x chromosomes who only x chromosomes know?

On the maturity count, Trayvon Martin might reasonably plead not guilty by reason of chronology. Seventeen-year-old boys quite often act like, in the vernacular of Zimmerman, “f—-ing punks.” Most grow out of it, but Mr. Martin unfortunately will not get that chance. Rarely, in spite of their exaggerated masculine posturing, do teenage boys behave as mature males.

Martin’s Twitter feed reads as a parody of poor grammar and an even more impoverished vocabulary. There, he’s a “No Limit N-gga,” girls he knows are “bitches” and “hoes,” and the primary extracurricular activity he immerses himself in is marijuana. The gold-teeth smile, the tattoos, the ten-day suspension from school, and all the rest appear as pathetic attempts to assert his virility. Yet, as his supporters point out, Trayvon also liked Skittles and Chuck E. Cheese’s. The presentation that Trayvon affected and the Trayvon that his supporters present are, like so many making the journey from adolescence to adulthood, at war internally.

George Zimmerman, in contrast, projects a courtroom image of a meek pudgeball who wouldn’t (couldn’t?) hurt a fly — and not in a Norman Bates way. Perhaps this is the effect that his lawyers intended. But it jibes with what we know. According to one unidentified witness, Zimmerman endured a domineering mother’s frequent beatings and a docile father who failed to stick up for his kids. His mixed-martial arts instructor described him as “physically soft,” a student who lacked athleticism and “didn’t know how to really effectively punch.”

One wonders if the cage-fighting classes, the pursuit of a career in law enforcement, and a firearm kept ready to fire were Zimmerman’s ways of discovering his elusive manhood in a manner akin to Trayvon’s tattoos, coarse language, and demonstrative drug use. With the teenager sans a father in the home to serve as guide, and the neighborhood-watch captain growing up watching the cowed captain of his home, the pair’s past altered their future as much as anything else did.

Zimmerman’s screams and Trayvon slamming Zimmerman’s head into the concrete weren’t the acts of men. A man is neither a woman nor an animal. The proper response to an assault by a 158-pound teenager isn’t to scream for help or grab for a gun. It is to punch back or better yet subdue and issue a spanking. And a sucker punch, the repeated hitting of a downed opponent, and the bashing of a skull against the concrete doesn’t pass muster with the Marquess of Queensberry. Perhaps the “No Holds Barred Fighting” dojo that Zimmerman had signed up for would approve.

Their households lacked strong male role models; their society, even more so. Four in ten American kids enter the world without their father married to their mother. When schoolboys begin to exhibit traits natural to their sex, the energetic fellows earn the wrath of detention and Ritalin. Any game that highlights contact — from dodgeball to football — comes under attack. Primetime television celebrates the fop and makes a buffoon out of fathers (see Simpson, Homer; Everybody Loves, Raymond). Jobs relying on the physical characteristics favored in males have been outsourced to robots and foreigners. When a pundit asked “Are Men Necessary?” a few years back it reflected the scarcity rather than the superfluity of the genuine article.

Civilizing men out of existence has come at great cost to civilization. Instead of men, we get feminine imitations lacking beauty. We get lost boys compensating by becoming barbarians. We get Sanford, Florida, February 26, 2012.

from July12, 2013 American Spectator by Daniel J. Flynn, the author of The War on Football: Saving America's Game,