(Following up on yesterday, so read it first). On September 14th our local paper ran an article by David Brooks, "The erosion of shared moral frameworks." Brooks reflected on the findings from a group of sociologists who studied America's youth. His point is that today's youth, while not decadent, are inept in discussing moral issues. Two-thirds were unable to describe a moral dilemma. Brooks reflects upon their inablility to think in moral terms. It is very disconcerting. He concludes that things were different in the past: "A shared religion defined rules and practices. Cultures structured people's imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. But now more people are led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit."
This does not mean that people were better in the past. Sinful humans sin. The problem of sin is always there. The problem is the younger among us are incapable of deciphering what sin is, beyond obvious things like murder. The bigger problem is the total ascendency of the individual/personal over the corporate/communal.The ethical system in which I was educated in seminary had a helpful balance between individual conscience and institutional expectations. The concept of an informed conscience was a key element. A person was expected to engage the revelation of God's will as found in Scripture and discerned by and articulated through the Church. I know the Protestant approach negates the latter as unhelpful, and many Protestant friends speak of Church Tradition as a negative. Yet, clearly, the current conflict over interpretation of Scripture is grounded in "free-floating individuals" and the result has been rather chaotic.
The adovcates for Man-Boy love (called NAMBLA, a group which no longer "officially" exists) was originally an active agent in gay rights advocacy. Lesbians were resistant to this and as the gay rights advocates became 'less radical' and more mainstream NAMBLA was expelled from their organizations. One can only wonder to what degree the decisions were made for practical purposes (in pursuing acceptance of homosexuality). I have no doubt that many homosexuals whom I know would be offended by NAMBLA. I also am not surprised that Lesbians would find it offensive. The only point I make is that there is an overlap, and a significant overlap, of the movement to 'normalize' GLBT relationships and the aims of NAMBLA.
Because the existing moral code is under attack, not only by secularists, but also by those within the church, we live in a time where much change is taking place. What is most worrisome is that the conservative evangelicals, long criticized for their "intolerance" are manifesting the same erosion of values that their Liberal/Progressive opponents are advocating. It is based, at least in part, on the general decline of churches into collections of "free-floating individuals." The ecclessiology of many committed Christians minimizes the value of church and negates catholicity. An emphasis on personal salvation is interpretted through the predominant cultural lense (what is in it for me?) and the rejection of the church's authority to teach reduces each person to an isolated decision maker. Shaped by assumptions which are non-Christian and limited by mediocre skills in moral analysis and decision making, the church youth are little better equipped to answer life's challenges than their non-believing neighbors. In the end, the Bible is not always terribly helpful to such an individual. There is much in the Bible which confuses. There is a need to intrepret the texts and such interpretations can be very divergent, very, very divergent. And when we listen to no voive but our own (and those who say what we want to hear) the likelihood of hearing the text say what we want to hear increases tenfold.
The success of the GLBT coalition has been astounding. For the better part of a decade it has been front and center of news stories and popular entertainment. (e.g., a popular show among teens, Glee, revels constantly in gay themes). Progressives would applaud such openness. I am not so enthusiastic. Instead, I continue to see (helpful) boundaries disappear. The efforts to normalize the GLBT has moved the limits of toleration ever closer to acceptance of the 'next thing'. The current movement to change age of consent and rethink the issue of sex between adult and child is the beginning, not the end, of a process. To the extent that they have undermined traditional moral teaching, the adovocates of GLBT stand responsible for this latest tragedy. The failure of honesty and the refusal to analyze their own arguments (and the consequences of their claims) has produced an environment of new danger. Calling traditional morality "hate speech" has made it less possible to speak the truth in love to the advocates of child sex. Molesters revel in all this. They have hope that the weakened standing of the traditional moral code will provide them with the opportunity to normalize their perversions. I do not see how the Progressives can answer this advance. After all, when you claim that no one has a right to judge another, you open the door to everything. Well, the door is open and everything is on its way in.
No comments:
Post a Comment