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.
No comments:
Post a Comment