In Lewis' The Great Divorce, ghostly souls awaiting judgement are occasionally permitted a holiday to the outskirts of paradise. During these outings, the ghosts have various encounters with the “Solid People” who, unlike them, are shining and beautiful. One such encounter involves a female ghost who “supposed herself still capable of attracting the Solid People.” Lewis tells us that, “If a corpse already liquid with decay had arisen from the coffin, smeared its gums with lipstick, and attempted a flirtation, the result could not have been more appalling.”
I bring up this scene because a similar image comes to mind whenever I see politicians, educators, and activists attempting to bustle parental rights into the smothering arms of scare quotes. Amidst their tireless vigil over other people’s kids, the subtext becomes increasingly clear: WE could do a better job of parenting than parents can.
For example, NDP’s Randall Garrison, recently stated:
I'd like to say first of all, there is no such thing as parental rights in Canada, there are parental responsibilities. And in Canadian family law, the primary responsibility of parents is to support and affirm their kids.
And last June, the prime minister of Canada went on record to say that:
Far-right political actors are trying to outdo themselves with the types of cruelty and isolation they can inflict on these already vulnerable people . . . Right now, trans kids . . . are being told they don’t have the right to be their true selves, that they need to ask permission . . . We have to stand against this. We have to stand up for the freedoms we believe in and continue our work of letting love be louder than hate.
Other members of the United Guild of Onion-Heads have also taken up the cause, calling parental rights “unacceptable,” “about control,” and “a dog whistle for regressive politics.”
They’re not wrong about parental rights being a dog whistle. The question is — what kinds of dogs are we calling in?
Communist Redux
In a sermon you really should listen to, Alex explains that the reason for the world’s antipathy towards the family isn’t fundamentally political or social, but spiritual. Vewed from this angle, Adam and Eve were actually the first family antagonists. In rejecting God’s instituted hierarchy (God→Man→Woman) in favour of their own autonomy, they set the pattern for all who would come after them. What becomes clear throughout Scripture is that families aren’t just locked in a battle against outside forces, but against their own desires. Husbands reject their duty to lead. Wives reject their duty to help. Children reject their duty to obey. In all of this, we manifest our rejection of God and His rightful rule.
Without checks and balances, the state also constantly rejects its proper bounds. Instead of operating under God and constitutional law, it prefers to live life as an industrial vacuum, sucking up everything that wanders into its gravitational pull. When other spheres of authority, such as the church and family, are intact, it can’t do much harm. Citizens, including children, that are part of covenantal units are notoriously difficult to isolate and influence.
Where these spheres are already weakened, however, the state will have a much easier time creeping in and devouring households.
In 1920, Alexandra Kollontai, the Soviet’s first People’s Commissar for Welfare, (let’s just call her the Minister of Social Services) wrote a leaflet entitled “Communism and the Family” in which she explains the communist vision for children and families:
Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family . . . [which shows] that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective.
And further on:
Communist society considers the social education of the rising generation to be one of the fundamental aspects of the new life. The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the “new person.” The playgrounds, gardens, homes and other amenities where the child will spend the greater part of the day under the supervision of qualified educators will, on the other hand, offer an environment in which the child can grow up a conscious communist who recognises the need for solidarity, comradeship, mutual help and loyalty to the collective.
Notice the same tactics employed by old-school Soviet commies are being picked up again by woke statists today. The old conception of the family has become “narrow and petty” and “not capable.” Today’s children will spend “the greater part of the day under the supervision of qualified educators.” And perhaps most worryingly, “The responsibility for the child [must pass] from the family to the collective.”
How will such developments take place?
Herbert Marcuse, one of the three founders of the infamous neo-communist Frankfurt School, wrote a book entitled Eros and Civilization, which would go on to be an important source text for the sexual revolution of the 60’s. His biographer writes about Marcuse’s pedagogical intentions for the book:
The body in its entirety would become . . . a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope in libidinal relationships would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamous and patriarchal family.
Marcuse may have been a perverted son of a dog, but you can’t fault him for his loyalty to Marx. He knew that hale and hearty non-state institutions (church, family) were the greatest threat to the realization of the communist vision. A “disintegration of institutions” must take place if there’s to be any hope of reintegration under the state, which must take place if there’s to be any hope of the withering of the state, which must take place if there’s to be any hope of a socialist utopia.
That was Marx’s vision, unhinged though it be. Considering it more closely, I’m fairly certain it’s more than just unhinged. The almost ravenous hunger for children? The delight in death and destruction? The dangling carrot of human-engineered peace? The gnawing, deep-seated hatred for God and those made in His image? These aren’t just philosophical quirks. They’re straight-up demonic. They’re the dragon’s rage honed to a keen and tireless edge (Rev. 12:17).
A Call to Parents
As parents, our responsibility remains to train and protect our kids. This isn’t a privilege the state may choose to allow or not, but a charge entrusted to us by God (Deut. 6:7; Prov. 22:6; Prov. 23:13–14; Prov. 13:24; Eph. 6:4). When non-parental entities attempt to posture themselves as surrogate legal guardians, it should provoke a similar response in us as the attempted flirtations of a melted corpse. It should disturb us. It should make the hair on the back of our neck stand up. It should make us drop whatever polite social conventions we’re holding so we can pick up and brandish a 36-inch pipe wrench.
Dads, I’m looking at you. Statists hate that they can’t get to your kids. They hate that your training and instruction may take precedence over their own psychotic indoctrination. They will do anything in their power to take you out — shame, threats, coercion — and your job, with God’s help, will be to not give in.
Let me repeat it again. The greatest threat to tyrants isn’t an army, an indefatigable patriotism, or a vast body-armour collection. The greatest threat, and the most hateful spectacle to evil is “the mongamous and patriarchal family.” And not just families huddled up in their homestead root cellars, but families rooted and devoted to Christ and His church.
If you’re young and single — get married and have kids. If you’re married and have kids — join a Bible-believing church. If you’re married and can’t have kids — join a Bible-believing church. If you’re old and don’t have kids — join a Bible-believing church. Now is not the time to float through life alone and untethered. Now is not the time to be “pastored” by some suit on TV who coddles your weird eschatological views. Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand.
In all of this we remember: The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you all.
Very well said, as always. Ken Campbell, way back in the 80s; "“So we meekly adopt a lifestyle like the pagans, and allow our children to be sacrificed in the state school system, to the gods of secularism – affluence and ease – rather than jeopardize our economic and social security by affirming Christ’s Lordship as parents and citizens, at any cost!”
Well said!