It's not news to anyone that modern culture has undergone a dramatic shift in the area of sexual morals; not just in behavior but more fundamentally in the philosophy of how we determine what is or is not immoral in the expression of sexual desires. It appears to me that this shift has been most pronounced wherever cultures have been influenced by democratic politics and, ironically, Protestant Christianity. The combination of these philosophies of polity in government and religion has produced a culture of morality where the decisions of individual choice are assumed as a "God-given" right. To suggest otherwise is to sound like a jihadist or fanatical fundamentalist.
When I was in high school, girls who "slept around" might have been preferred by some young men for a secret adventure, but they were still subject to the general disapproval of the public. Such a girl would have been treated to glances and whispers in the school halls. Now, if not yet in the majority everywhere, she would at least be accepted as "typical". Unmarried couples who were living together were excluded from full public acceptance and, in some cases, from their own families. Now, unmarried celebrity couples have their children together and most don't even think twice about it.
And how did this happen so quickly? You could blame Hugh Hefner and his envelope-pushing magazine. Or you put it all on the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60's, which spread its own version of "love" to millions previously under the sway of the older model of morality. But one of the most effective means of re-inventing the terms of sexual behavior was simply to verbalize a new way of looking at sexual relations outside of marriage. The whole subject of sex has been re-cast in language that throws the balance in favor of acceptance of things that were once regarded as immoral.
Those who were formerly "promiscuous" are now merely "sexually active." Couples who were "shacking up" are just "co-habiting". We may still hear of some teens or college kids engaging in "risky behavior", but that's just in terms of the risks of acquiring a disease of some kind, not in regard to any kind of moral risk. Anyone who would stand up and call unmarried sexual relations a "sin" would be immediately branded as a "prude" or "judgmental".
The suggestion that abstinence might be the best ways to prevent teen pregnancies is called "unrealistic" because no one thinks it can actually work. There are some in the Christian community who have more recently taken a stand on abstinence before marriage, but it appears to me that those voices are generally regarded by the larger society like people regard the Amish - quaint and out of step with the times.
Is all this just a cultural shift, like those in the world of clothing or language that make human society in a free nation a very fluid thing? Or is there something deeper going on in the spiritual realm. The Bible warns of times when people won't tolerate the speaking of truth any longer, when people will be "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." There's nothing especially new about such shifts in morality, except perhaps to the degree that we have seen it become not merely permitted by society, but now almost totally approved by those with the power to move our society in new directions.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Faithful or rigid?
It was in a logic class in college that I first learned about an everyday fact of language which I had until then overlooked. There are words that describe a personal quality which are always positive in meaning, like courageous or decisive. There are other words that describe pretty much the same kind of quality, but always from a negative view; words like foolhardy or hasty.
And, indeed, most qualities of the mind or behavior can have more than one dimension. But the interesting thing is that people will tend to use only the positive orientation in regard to themselves, while employing the negative connotation of a very similar attribute in respect to others. A couple of examples: "I have convictions, you're a fanatic!"; "I speak my mind, you're harsh and judgmental!"; "I'm an individual, you're wierd."
In the religious realm, this same contrast is often used by those who want to criticize a person of a different philosophy or position; and it comes from all over the spectrum of beliefs. Conservatives may deride those of a more liberal orientation, calling them things like "heretic", "modernist" or "worldly". Liberals, meanwhile, might put down conservatives as "doctrinaire", "rigid" or "dogmatic". No one ever tries to slam his theological adversary by calling him "faithful" or "thoughtful". Instead, a critic would use terms like "reactionary" or "wishy-washy" to put the intended spin in the desired direction.
All this makes it very difficult to carry on any kind of reasoned discussion of ideas where there is more than one perspective to take, or where different but complementary ideas need to be held in proper balance. The question of traditional vs. contemporary in worship is one such area, and how to relate the unchanging truth of the Gospel to a constantly changing culture is another. Demonizing the opposite viewpoint is not helpful in resolving differences, nor is describing someone who disagrees as an "obstructionist" useful in loving one's neighbor.
But the most common kind of semantic juggling, as it affects evangelical believers these days, is the casting of those who believe in the authority of God's Word in negative terms like "exclusive", "intolerant" (which is almost like calling someone "un-American"), or even "hateful" because they dare call some lifestyles morally unacceptable. Those who still regard the Bible as fully authoritative and inerrant are derided with the kind of language one would use for the Flat-earth Society.
Yes, there are such things as "legalism", "Phariseeism", or "fanaticism". But that kind of thing only happens when human emotion or tradition replace a balanced and careful exposition of the Bible. If we let the Bible speak its own message to our hearts, we see that love is not unrestricted permissiveness, and righteousness is not unfeeling criticism and judgmentalism.
To adhere to "Thus says the Lord" instead of following the latest poll numbers or trendy cultural turn is not just a matter of doctrinal convictions; it's just common sense to stick with something so well attested by time and millions of changed lives. If that's being "stuck in the past", O.K, but at least I'm "prepared for the future".
And, indeed, most qualities of the mind or behavior can have more than one dimension. But the interesting thing is that people will tend to use only the positive orientation in regard to themselves, while employing the negative connotation of a very similar attribute in respect to others. A couple of examples: "I have convictions, you're a fanatic!"; "I speak my mind, you're harsh and judgmental!"; "I'm an individual, you're wierd."
In the religious realm, this same contrast is often used by those who want to criticize a person of a different philosophy or position; and it comes from all over the spectrum of beliefs. Conservatives may deride those of a more liberal orientation, calling them things like "heretic", "modernist" or "worldly". Liberals, meanwhile, might put down conservatives as "doctrinaire", "rigid" or "dogmatic". No one ever tries to slam his theological adversary by calling him "faithful" or "thoughtful". Instead, a critic would use terms like "reactionary" or "wishy-washy" to put the intended spin in the desired direction.
All this makes it very difficult to carry on any kind of reasoned discussion of ideas where there is more than one perspective to take, or where different but complementary ideas need to be held in proper balance. The question of traditional vs. contemporary in worship is one such area, and how to relate the unchanging truth of the Gospel to a constantly changing culture is another. Demonizing the opposite viewpoint is not helpful in resolving differences, nor is describing someone who disagrees as an "obstructionist" useful in loving one's neighbor.
But the most common kind of semantic juggling, as it affects evangelical believers these days, is the casting of those who believe in the authority of God's Word in negative terms like "exclusive", "intolerant" (which is almost like calling someone "un-American"), or even "hateful" because they dare call some lifestyles morally unacceptable. Those who still regard the Bible as fully authoritative and inerrant are derided with the kind of language one would use for the Flat-earth Society.
Yes, there are such things as "legalism", "Phariseeism", or "fanaticism". But that kind of thing only happens when human emotion or tradition replace a balanced and careful exposition of the Bible. If we let the Bible speak its own message to our hearts, we see that love is not unrestricted permissiveness, and righteousness is not unfeeling criticism and judgmentalism.
To adhere to "Thus says the Lord" instead of following the latest poll numbers or trendy cultural turn is not just a matter of doctrinal convictions; it's just common sense to stick with something so well attested by time and millions of changed lives. If that's being "stuck in the past", O.K, but at least I'm "prepared for the future".
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The problem of an earthly economy
One of the biggest stories to occupy the news media in the past 12 months has been the U.S. economy. Slumping housing markets, foreclosures, rising unemployment and much more continues to make people nervous about the impact of a possible recession in the near future. And now today’s news brings the report that “Growing numbers of middle-class Americans say they are not better off than they were five years ago.”
In other words, an economy that throws people’s lives into chaos, like the mortgage mess is doing, doesn’t have to be one that’s slumping into another “Great Depression”; though a recession could conceivably be around the corner. Rather, a sufficient cause for economic trouble seems to be that our personal financial growth chart isn’t advancing ever upward. Just the failure of enough people to make economic progress is enough to put a wrench into the works of our capitalistic system.
We have a consumer-driven society, one that needs a continually expanding supply of jobs for the ever-growing work force, providing an increasing amount of capital for investment and purchasing power, that keeps a steady demand for products that keep people working and earning more money to spend on more products – Whew! It’s not enough to just “maintain”, and keep a “steady as you go” pace. In this system, failing to grow is the same as shrinking.
And, unfortunately for the moral and spiritual health of our nation, much of the consumer growth rate is dependent on goods and services that are far beyond the ordinary and wholesome things we all need for a healthy life. Much of our economy is built on a segment of the market that deals in extravagant luxury, which, from a biblical viewpoint, looks a lot like greed and avarice. And another large portion is devoted to pleasures and sensual experiences that, sooner or later, bring corruption to the soul and much harm to the innocent people caught up in the effects of destructive and addictive behaviors.
I’ve often wondered what would happen if an instantaneous spiritual revival swept over our country. Suppose every American went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow a devoted, “pure-in-heart” Christian. Immediately, large sections of our consumer economy would be shut down as there would be no market for goods and services of questionable moral value. Millions of people would be out of work, rather than participate in immoral businesses. Thousands of stores would soon close or lay off workers because they couldn’t sell even everyday products to people who couldn’t afford them. It would make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn in holiday shopping.
Everyone would heed the Scriptural instruction to “be content with food and covering.” No one would be buying new products just to “upgrade” if their present model was “good enough.” No one would worry about impressing their neighbors, keeping up with the Joneses, or trying to attract the opposite sex by having just the right “whatever.” We’d have to totally reinvent the economic structure of the nation, building one on goodness, justice and virtue, instead of consumerism and materialism.
In the world as it is, even sincere Christians need discipline and restraint to resist being swept up in the consumer momentum. It’s hard enough being content, with our human nature wired to an attraction toward whatever is new and different. Much more so when the advertisers are constantly telling you you’re falling way behind if you haven’t “updated” your lifestyle in a few years. It’s enough to make you feel guilty and even a bit unpatriotic about putting your tax rebate into savings instead of spending it. (Just kidding)
Economic stagnation may be a problem for the material well-being of the nation as a whole, but spiritual stagnation is a far worse problem for the well-being of the soul. And, according to Jesus, we can't serve God and money at the same time. For those who allow themselves to be drawn into the lure of materialistic pursuit, the warning of Paul is still accurate, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Thank God for the reality that Christians can truly be growing in the ways that count, even if our material and physical reality is not. Heavenly treasure won’t help me in respect to the Joneses, but it pays eternal dividends way better than Berkshire Hathaway!
In other words, an economy that throws people’s lives into chaos, like the mortgage mess is doing, doesn’t have to be one that’s slumping into another “Great Depression”; though a recession could conceivably be around the corner. Rather, a sufficient cause for economic trouble seems to be that our personal financial growth chart isn’t advancing ever upward. Just the failure of enough people to make economic progress is enough to put a wrench into the works of our capitalistic system.
We have a consumer-driven society, one that needs a continually expanding supply of jobs for the ever-growing work force, providing an increasing amount of capital for investment and purchasing power, that keeps a steady demand for products that keep people working and earning more money to spend on more products – Whew! It’s not enough to just “maintain”, and keep a “steady as you go” pace. In this system, failing to grow is the same as shrinking.
And, unfortunately for the moral and spiritual health of our nation, much of the consumer growth rate is dependent on goods and services that are far beyond the ordinary and wholesome things we all need for a healthy life. Much of our economy is built on a segment of the market that deals in extravagant luxury, which, from a biblical viewpoint, looks a lot like greed and avarice. And another large portion is devoted to pleasures and sensual experiences that, sooner or later, bring corruption to the soul and much harm to the innocent people caught up in the effects of destructive and addictive behaviors.
I’ve often wondered what would happen if an instantaneous spiritual revival swept over our country. Suppose every American went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow a devoted, “pure-in-heart” Christian. Immediately, large sections of our consumer economy would be shut down as there would be no market for goods and services of questionable moral value. Millions of people would be out of work, rather than participate in immoral businesses. Thousands of stores would soon close or lay off workers because they couldn’t sell even everyday products to people who couldn’t afford them. It would make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn in holiday shopping.
Everyone would heed the Scriptural instruction to “be content with food and covering.” No one would be buying new products just to “upgrade” if their present model was “good enough.” No one would worry about impressing their neighbors, keeping up with the Joneses, or trying to attract the opposite sex by having just the right “whatever.” We’d have to totally reinvent the economic structure of the nation, building one on goodness, justice and virtue, instead of consumerism and materialism.
In the world as it is, even sincere Christians need discipline and restraint to resist being swept up in the consumer momentum. It’s hard enough being content, with our human nature wired to an attraction toward whatever is new and different. Much more so when the advertisers are constantly telling you you’re falling way behind if you haven’t “updated” your lifestyle in a few years. It’s enough to make you feel guilty and even a bit unpatriotic about putting your tax rebate into savings instead of spending it. (Just kidding)
Economic stagnation may be a problem for the material well-being of the nation as a whole, but spiritual stagnation is a far worse problem for the well-being of the soul. And, according to Jesus, we can't serve God and money at the same time. For those who allow themselves to be drawn into the lure of materialistic pursuit, the warning of Paul is still accurate, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Thank God for the reality that Christians can truly be growing in the ways that count, even if our material and physical reality is not. Heavenly treasure won’t help me in respect to the Joneses, but it pays eternal dividends way better than Berkshire Hathaway!
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Is religion dangerous?
The question posed by today's title would have been thought very odd not so long ago, before aggressive atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens decided it wasn't enough to just bash religion to their fellow unbelievers. Now, Hitchens, author of God is not great: How religion poisons everything, along with several other authors, is serious about trying to convince Americans that religion isn't just unnecessary (as atheists have been saying for a long time), but is actually hazardous to society.
And, after more than 30 years of involvement in Christian ministry, I can agree with Hitchens to a certain point. I discovered many years ago that "there's no fight like a church fight." The reason is simple: People tend to disagree with each other in church just like anywhere else. But among religious people, and especially those who take their religion very seriously, there is a tendency to not only disagree, but to think God is on your side of the disagreement. Which means that the other guys are not only wrong (which is what we often call those who disagree with us), but they're out of step with the Lord as well.
Of course, God is not nearly so interested in "who's right" as in "what's right", but that's a lesson that takes most of us awhile to learn. In the meantime, it takes a lot of "loving your neighbor as yourself", which is what is supposed to separate real Christianity from mere religion. The Bible teaches us that real blessing can come to those who are "peacemakers" and "merciful." That doesn't mean Christians can't ever disagree, but we have to remember that real love, the love that wants always to do what is best and good for all, is much more important than settling a disagreement in my favor.
And that's why religion can indeed be a dangerous thing, when it's human religion, pursued with zeal and self-righteousness by those who don't have a clue about balancing their disagreements with godly love and mercy. As anyone familiar with history knows, and as atheists like Hitchens are only too eager to remind us, a great many wars have been fought over primarily religious interests. And yes, there were a lot of wars in the Bible, where God's people were commanded to not only defeat the enemies of God, but to utterly wipe them off the map. And for those who don't know the difference between Biblical religion and any other variety, all religious wars look the same.
But the critics of God's aggression against the Caananites totally miss the purpose of cleansing this one specific area of the earth, where the holy people of Israel were supposed to set up a society designed to be a light of godliness to the world. They were never commanded to take their mission of cleansing to the rest of the heathen world. Their war in Caanan was a specific instrument of God's justice and judgment, which will one day visit the rest of the world of sinful men who rebel against God's word.
And that's why man-made religions can become dangerous. Their wars and aggression are not commanded by God. They go way beyond the example of holiness of a particular people and a particular time. They go beyond the mercy of God to enforce the ambitions and agendas of men. For those who don't understand that "real religion" is about loving the Lord with all our hearts, and caring for others, especially the needy, the motives of religious zeal fit all too well with other ambitions of human pride, power and ego, which can be a very dangerous mixture. If only Hitchens and his cronies could tell the difference, they could make better criticism of the right problem: not God's religion but men's hearts.
And, after more than 30 years of involvement in Christian ministry, I can agree with Hitchens to a certain point. I discovered many years ago that "there's no fight like a church fight." The reason is simple: People tend to disagree with each other in church just like anywhere else. But among religious people, and especially those who take their religion very seriously, there is a tendency to not only disagree, but to think God is on your side of the disagreement. Which means that the other guys are not only wrong (which is what we often call those who disagree with us), but they're out of step with the Lord as well.
Of course, God is not nearly so interested in "who's right" as in "what's right", but that's a lesson that takes most of us awhile to learn. In the meantime, it takes a lot of "loving your neighbor as yourself", which is what is supposed to separate real Christianity from mere religion. The Bible teaches us that real blessing can come to those who are "peacemakers" and "merciful." That doesn't mean Christians can't ever disagree, but we have to remember that real love, the love that wants always to do what is best and good for all, is much more important than settling a disagreement in my favor.
And that's why religion can indeed be a dangerous thing, when it's human religion, pursued with zeal and self-righteousness by those who don't have a clue about balancing their disagreements with godly love and mercy. As anyone familiar with history knows, and as atheists like Hitchens are only too eager to remind us, a great many wars have been fought over primarily religious interests. And yes, there were a lot of wars in the Bible, where God's people were commanded to not only defeat the enemies of God, but to utterly wipe them off the map. And for those who don't know the difference between Biblical religion and any other variety, all religious wars look the same.
But the critics of God's aggression against the Caananites totally miss the purpose of cleansing this one specific area of the earth, where the holy people of Israel were supposed to set up a society designed to be a light of godliness to the world. They were never commanded to take their mission of cleansing to the rest of the heathen world. Their war in Caanan was a specific instrument of God's justice and judgment, which will one day visit the rest of the world of sinful men who rebel against God's word.
And that's why man-made religions can become dangerous. Their wars and aggression are not commanded by God. They go way beyond the example of holiness of a particular people and a particular time. They go beyond the mercy of God to enforce the ambitions and agendas of men. For those who don't understand that "real religion" is about loving the Lord with all our hearts, and caring for others, especially the needy, the motives of religious zeal fit all too well with other ambitions of human pride, power and ego, which can be a very dangerous mixture. If only Hitchens and his cronies could tell the difference, they could make better criticism of the right problem: not God's religion but men's hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)