A MORALITY OF THE MOMENT

August 26, 2016 

As the warfare unleashed by “progressives” against traditional moral values continues to ramp up, I am very concerned about the ongoing efforts being made to re-define what is moral.  In the new world envisioned by the progressives, morality would no longer be defined by a single transcendent standard recognized by the majority of society – i.e. Biblical morality or Judeo-Christian ethics.  Instead, what is being advocated, and advanced at an alarming rate, would be a fluid standard defined by each individual rather than a societal norm.  For years this has been referred to as a “situational” ethic.  I would characterize it as a morality of the moment.

It is undeniable that there is a situational aspect to morality.  As much as I would like “right” and “wrong” to be issues of “black” and “white,” it’s not always that way.  Time and again, the morality of an action is, to a greater or lesser degree, very much determined by the context in which the action occurs.  Take, for instance, the killing of another human being.  Suppose a suspect shoots and kills an elderly clerk at a neighborhood grocery store during a robbery.  When the suspect is apprehended, one of the charges brought against him will be murder.  He is considered to have committed an act that is heinous and indefensible.  The suspect, if found guilty, will be punished as severely as the State allows, including possibly the forfeiture of his life by execution.  On the other hand, if that elderly clerk had been armed, and in an exchange of gunfire killed his assailant, he would most likely be exonerated of any wrongdoing; his actions seen as justified. The context of the taking of the life of another human being is very important.  It literally determines the morally acceptable or unacceptable nature of the action.

Those who would trash traditional moral values and replace them with what, in comparison, would be at best an amorality, love to exploit what they see as a weakness in the traditional standard.  They would argue all morality should ultimately be seen as situational rather than covered by a single, transcendent standard.  In an attempt to sever morality from such a standard, the “situational” ethic argues that what is moral or immoral should always be determined by what is “right” in the moment, rather than by some standard or code of conduct.  If what is done is “loving” (a very spongy, indeterminate standard), then it is right.  Thus, would it really be wrong for a woman to commit adultery with a prison guard at a concentration camp during WWII if it would allow her the possibility of escape and being able to return to her family? Would stealing bread from a store in order to feed his starving children make a desperate father a thief?  Would it be senseless and wrong not to lie if a convicted felon who has sworn vengeance against your father appears suddenly at the door and asks if he is home?  Such questions are designed to blur and denigrate absolutes, to create “grey” areas in values, and to seek to justify the argument that all morality should be viewed as situational in nature.  By setting up moral “straw men” and framing each dilemma in the context, not of right and wrong, but emotion (love), a situational ethic is presented as being superior to one which would condemn or forbid the actions in the examples just cited.

Tying moral standards to feelings rather than law codes has become very popular.  It permits one to act in ways which are contrary to traditional moral codes yet still be considered “moral.”  So, in our current moral climate, if a man suddenly decides he is gay and is in love with another man, many would defend his decision to divorce his wife and traumatize his children with the breakup of their family in order to be “true” to his feelings.  They would argue it would be more immoral for him to live a “lie,” by denying his true sexual feelings, than to destroy his marriage and family by “coming out.”

But changing the basis for making and evaluating moral decisions is a double-edged sword.  While there are many defenders of the “situational” ethic and the “freedom” it is seen as engendering by allowing “feelings” to determine what is moral rather than “law,” it also creates some appalling dilemmas; dilemmas I believe are destructive and dangerous.  It produces a fog of uncertainty and doubt rather than clarity.  It complicates rather than simplifies moral decision making.

Allow me to share with you a recent example.  In a nearby town, a man was arrested for exposing his genitals to two young girls.  He was charged with indecent exposure and jailed.  If that same man had walked into the women’s bathroom at the local Target store and exposed himself to those same two girls, if he claimed to be transsexual or even just unsure of his sexuality, not only would no charges be brought against him, but if the girls or their parents expressed outrage over his actions, they, not the man, would be viewed by many as being in the wrong morally because of their intolerance and lack of sympathy.  So, in one situation the man is a criminal and a pervert, and in the other situation the girls are the ones with the problem if they say anything.  If that is not illogical and downright confusing, I don’t know what is.  Welcome to the brave new world of the morality of the moment.  

Another major issue with this approach to morality is that, contrary to all the claims, “situational ethics” or the “morality of the moment” ultimately cannot genuinely be an individual standard.  There is no way a society can function if each individual within that society is genuinely free to “roll their own” morality.  Nothing less than absolute chaos will be the result.  There must be a set of rules mutually agreed upon by society as a whole or everything from business transactions to stop lights become perilous to the point of paralysis.

In reality what is occurring is not a push for individual moral choice; it is rather a re-definition of morality according to a non-Christian, pagan standard.  This standard is not being determined by majority vote.  It is being determined by those who are at the top of the food chain at the moment. It is posited, pushed, and defended by those in the government and media with the power and position to advocate it.  This “new” morality is just as arbitrary, and just as binding, as the traditional standard.  The enforcement of these standards is being ruthlessly carried out.  The punishments for disobedience are very real.  The difference is, and it is a huge one, that the moral standards are generated, not by God, but by men.  They are not transcendent, but simply reflective of the values of those in power.

So, according to the latest version of what is moral, smoking a toke is acceptable, but smoking a cigarette is not.  Advocating sexual perversion is honorable, bringing up its consequences is offensive and hateful.  My gender is fluid but I can be fired for lying about my age.  I can’t compliment a woman for how she looks or I’m guilty of sexual harassment.  I can put any obscenity laden screed I wish on a bumper sticker, but I can’t put the Ten Commandments on a sign in a public park.  The bottom line is moral law has not disappeared at all.  It has merely been reshaped to reflect the mood of the moment.

We are watching moral teachings that have guided societies for thousands of years being spurned and rejected.  In many cases, what was once moral is now seen as immoral, and what was once immoral is now moral.  This revolution in standards and values, again, is not without serious consequence.  Biblical standards of morality, many would argue, have been put in place and enforced because they provide protection from those who would do others, or themselves, harm.  Revising those laws on an emotional, spurious basis strips society of protections and opens the door to multiple dire consequences. 

The morality of the moment has gifted us with soaring teen pregnancy rates, tens of millions of abortions, millions of single parent families, marriages and relationships being destroyed by pornography addiction, horrifying STD rates, increased drug and alcohol abuse, horrifying suicide rates, and increasing random, violent crime.  The new “freedom” to do whatever feels good at the moment is extracting an unbelievable price in the misery that goes with it.

This battle over morals is one that, as Christians, we may appear to be losing.  But I would argue it is a battle we must fight and keep on fighting with the same relentless fervor that has carried the other side to victory after victory.  We must never stop fighting for what God and common sense has taught us is right.  The welfare of our children and grandchildren depend on it.

SOME THOUGHTS ON POLITICAL WARFARE

August 10, 2016

War is a hideous business.  It is one group of human beings trying to take by force that which another group of human beings possess.  The aggressors wage battle to gain more; the defenders battle to protect what they have from being taken.  There is little that is noble or good about what occurs.  There is much that is revolting and heartbreaking.

Mankind has made attempts through the years to paint a façade of civility on war.  For instance, the four Geneva Conventions were designed to establish rules of conduct which would regulate how enemies treated each other. That those conventions have been shredded repeatedly in the heat of war is a matter of history.  War has never been about humanitarianism.  It has always been about the skillful use of lethal force to defeat the enemy.

In a very real sense, war is thievery.  It is taking from someone by force what is theirs by right of law.  Wars, in miniature, are fought daily in this country.  When a robber enters a convenience store with a gun, when a rapist invades a victim’s apartment, these are, in a very real sense, acts of war.  The perpetrator’s purpose is to take from another what they have no right to take.  Wars between gangs amount to the same thing.  One group of thugs is trying to dominate and control another group of thugs.  The only difference between these acts and nations going to war is the scope of the action, not the motive behind it.

At its root, war is not only about seizing someone else’s territory or possessions, it is very much, perhaps even ultimately, about power.  That intoxicating drug of power drives some humans to use unspeakable means to reach awful ends.  One of the heartbreaking truths about war is that it is inflicted upon the many by a few who will go to any end to get what they want – whether it be an armed robber or a dictator.

You see, the heartbreaking true story of any war is written, not just on the battlefield, but in the suffering of the innocents.  The Syrian refugee crisis, which has turned Europe and North America upside down, has been brought about by a few monsters whose lust for power trumps any concern over destroying a country in the process.  Farmers and shopkeepers in Syria who just want to work their farms or run their businesses have lost everything.  They didn’t vote for war.  They didn’t ask for war.  They didn’t want war.  They just have to pay the price for it in economic devastation and dislocation.

Not all wars are about building physical empires or seizing physical assets.  For instance, we now find ourselves, in this country, in the midst of what can only be called a political war.  It is not being fought with rifles and bombs, but it is just as real, and capable of delivering its own form of devastation.  Political wars are pursued by the few who, lusting for power and the ability it brings to enforce their values and agendas on others, will do whatever it takes to achieve that power.  

These last few months we have seen the fruits of political wars in this country.  I have watched with great sadness as ruthless, amoral people without honor or integrity seek to destroy their political opponents.  I have viewed both parties, driven by those whose lust for power knows no bounds, adopt a kind of “scorched earth” policy toward opponents they view as the enemy.  There is no nobility in this battle – only naked aggression.  The ultimate goal is not the good of the American people, it is to seize or hold on to positions which, in many ways, allow one to rule the world.

There have been a few lame attempts to justify what has become an incredibly degrading process.  I have heard it argued that more than a few presidential campaigns in the past have degenerated into ugly, mudslinging messes.  That history teaches presidential campaigns can be a blood sport.  True.  And it’s argued that the country survived it.  Also true.  But is there any sense in which we have been made better or nobler for it?  I would argue that children being subjected to watching their mother and father berate and degrade each other in a custody fight certainly does harm the children.  No matter how well-intentioned or self-justifying the parents attacks on each other may be, the ultimate result is going to be children who are scarred, and whose attitude towards both parents is negatively affected by what they have experienced.

No matter who “wins” this political war, with the way it is being fought, it is inevitable that the American people’s respect for, and trust in, our government is going to be lessened.  Wars are not fought without casualties, and those casualties are not always physical.  Just as many of our soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from PTSD and other psychological issues associated with war, so the bitter divides that now afflict this country as one side demonizes the other are only going to worsen.  The paranoia and downright hatred that characterize these divides too often lead to physical violence – riots – which are often correctly characterized as “race” or “culture” wars.  Those who would seek to divide and conquer must bear the responsibility for the hideous fruit their efforts produce.  

One final observation…  I really am of the conviction that “what you see is what you get.”  We should not expect some sudden, miraculous transformation in a candidate once he, or she, takes office.  True character is revealed under pressure.  I can think of few things more pressure filled than running for public office – particularly the office of the presidency.  As I watch two people who will apparently do just about anything to win that office, I find it difficult to believe they will function any differently in office.  I believe what we are now experiencing in this presidential campaign from the candidates is merely a foretaste of what we’ll see when they take office.  Frankly, that gives me little comfort.

May God, PLEASE, bless America with the leaders we need, not the ones we deserve.