It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere

This is another of the very common sayings associated with moral relativity that I hear floating around. But it really does not bear up under scrutiny. Suppose I believe that cyanide is harmless, does it matter? Well if I believe that, I might try to see if it tastes good or give it to someone else to try. Does that matter? It could be objected that we are talking here about religious beliefs and morality, about opinions not about facts. So the question morphs into “does it matter what we believe in terms of religious beliefs or morality?”

Perhaps the biggest problem with all of this, is our uncanny ability to rationalize what we want to do. I was not sure if I was being hit on, but some time ago now, I had this young woman tell me “I don't think adultery is wrong.” I looked her in the eye and told her gently “That is because you want to do it.” Her hand came up not quite quick enough to hide her “guilty as charged” smile. I believe she was sincere, that she sincerely wanted to commit adultery (if she was not already doing it). Did it matter? I am sure of this, it would matter very much to the wife of her (actual or perspective) lover.

Or what about the organization that exists to promote what is euphemistically called the North American man love boy association which is dedicated to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” One of their slogans by the way is “eight is too late.” There is a reason statuary rape is called rape, it is because it is well understood that underage children are far too vulnerable to persistent smiling and gentle persuasion to commit acts that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children are too young to make such life changing decisions. But if you believe theses advocates of “man boy love” (and I believe at least some of them) they are sincere. So yes with our (my) ability to fool ourselves (myself) I do believe that some of them are sincere, sincerely wrong, but wrong nevertheless! Does it matter? Would you leave such a man alone with your eight year old?

I argued earlier that all World views are in the end opinions, and that all such opinions can only be held by faith. So does it matter if you believe that there is no such thing as truth, or right and wrong, or that good and evil are illusions, and that atheists are right in their faith position that God does not exist? Well what if as Christians say it is, it is true that our main task here on earth is to choose our eternal destiny, and that that is determined by whether or not we accept God's forgiveness by turning to Him in repentance? Would it matter then? If what Christians says is wrong, and you can consistently live out your life in atheistic faith positions, and if such views reflects reality, and if there are no consequences to throwing out traditional morality, then perhaps it does not matter. In fact if orthodox Christian teachings are wrong, it probably doesn't matter even if you are not sincere.

If this life is all there is, and if you can get away with it, why not rape and murder pillage and get and stay drunk, and take and steal and kill off all your enemies? What does it matter if you can get away with it? If you die and that's it, what does it matter indeed? But if you are wrong, and you have fallen for lies, and you do have to stand before God and give an account of every idle word, then it does matter. As I say I believe that we can be sincerely wrong, but sincerely wrong is still wrong. In the world that I live in, there is such a thing as reality, and the reality is that choices have consequences, and wrong choices have unwanted consequences! Even if I did not believe what I believe about God, I do not think I would have enough faith to believe that it does not matter! To me it sounds far too much like a rationalization to do what I want to do and to heck with the consequences. But these things are surely too important not to thoroughly check them out!

Some will ask “Are you trying to scare me into heaven.” And if this is you, I understand that this can feel like a huge guilt trip is being laid on you. Unfortunately I don't doubt that some of it is, as not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian. But for those of us who have found a tangible reality and peace and joy and hope in our relationship with God through Christ, is it a passion to share what is too good to keep to ourselves even in the here and now, let alone what is promised in eternity (pleasures for evermore!).

I though we weren’t supposed to judge!

The saying in the title to this post is a reference to the Scripture “Judge not, that you be not judged” spoken by Christ in the gospels. I have heard this often thrown back on us Christians, and sometimes the application is valid, and sometimes it is not. Properly understood and applied, this a good and appropriate principle for both those inside and those outside the faith. It is not, however, always properly applied. It is applicable in the context of our discussion last day of our interaction with other cultures in this sense: It is wrong to come down harshly and judgmentally on isolated indigenous cultures. Christians are also wrong when they come across as self righteous and judgmental. This is not Christ like. In fact it is the very opposite, for in John 3:17 we read “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Self righteous and judgmental attitudes are wrong, and Christ's teaching warns that those who exhibit such attitudes will be judged in the same way they judge others. If we want mercy, we need to show mercy. We can't expect to have mercy for ourselves and judgement for the other buddy. It doesn't work that way!

But we need to ask if Christ meant (as some people interpret this as saying) that we should never say that anything is wrong, that we should simply remain quiet “butting out” of everything? In saying “judge not that you be not judged” was Christ agreeing with the “who are we to say this or that is wrong” philosophy? Was He was saying we should turn a blind eye to ongoing injustice and oppression, to man's inhumanity to man? And as last day's post shows some do advocate this with their “no intervention” stand with regards to other cultures. I can hear them asking “Well, we're not supposed to judge, right?” as a justification for their stand.

In order to see that this is not what Christ was advocating, all we need to do is to look at what he did in the Temple to those who were cheating the common people. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and drove them from the Temple. They were cheating the people as Christ makes clear when He says “You have made it (the Temple) it into a den of thieves.” No, Christ was not unmoved in the presence of injustice. So then if this is not what He meant then what exactly did He mean?

In Biblical interpretation it is important not to single out only part of a teaching. We are in danger of doing this when we pick out just a single verse on a subject. We will not fully appreciate the wisdom of what the Scriptures teach if we do this. Often there are other verses that throw light on what a particular verse means. In this case it is important to consider another of Christ's sayings that has to do with judgement. I am thinking of another teaching of Christ in the passaage “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). We need to look at both sayings. The context of this second verse is that the religious people in the Temple were criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. We are all fond of imposing rules on others, and Jesus was saying that we need to look past some of our rules at times and make a reflective evaluation of what is really going on.

In last day's post I was asking “whatever happened to wisdom, to sound judgement, to thoughtful consideration of the issues?” It would not be reflective wisdom to claim that murder is not wrong, even if a culture does not consider certain instances of it to be murder! “Ethnic cleansing” is not considered murder by those perpetrating it, but I still want to call that murder even if they don't! In his rationalization of the murder of six million Jews, Hitler referred to the Jews as “Untermenchen” (under people). He was saying Jews were not really human, so it is alright to kill them. We do need to say that these things are wrong. I am not saying we should be self righteous here, but sound and thoughtful consideration would surely lead us to say that certain things are simply wrong. If a murderer in a court of law told the judge “You're not supposed to judge, so but out” we would laugh at him. “Nice try buddy, but you can forget that!”

Part of the problem here is that words are so inadequate. In the English language the same word can have different meanings. We can usually determine the meaning from the context. For example right can be the opposite of wrong, or the opposite of left. I am fond of telling my English relatives that in Canada we drive on the right, and you English drive on the wrong side of the road :-). The word judge similarly has two meanings. In the sense that Jesus means it in the first of the two quotations He is talking about a judgmental, self righteous attitude and warning that if that is you, watch out because you will be judged the same way. In the second quotation He is talking about making sound, thoughtful and just evaluations as the situation warrants.

So the meaning of judge in the 'judge not' quotation is about not having a judgmental attitude that carries with it self righteous condemnation, and the command to judge justly has to do with having a humble gentle, thoughtful and insightful discernment that something may be right or wrong. An example of this latter attitude would be when we tell little Johnny that is it wrong to take a toy that does not belong to him. This attitude is needed both inside and outside the Church. Too often Christians (those who are, and those who only say they are) major only on rules and regulations and finish up condemning those who do not follow them. But this is to live under the law, not under grace. As always Jesus is the model here. In particular He does not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but He does tell her that she should go and sin no more (John 8:2-11). In other words He speaks the truth in love, and He judges (as in discerning right and wrong) righteously and deals with others with grace, mercy and truth. His example and teaching very much reflects that God prefers mercy to judgment, and that when we follow Him, mercy triumphs over judgment!

The instructions for us Christians to deal with moral issues within Christian community are very different from the way we are told to deal with the very same issues outside of our communities. The NIV of 1 Corinthians 5:12 reads “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” The Scripture is specific about the type of “outside” issue that is being talked about here. In particular in verse 11 Paul lists sexually immorality, covetousness, extortion and idolatry. So here is an explicit instruction to Christians not to judge the World (judge - as in self righteous condemnation) on these issues. Unfortunately not all Christians are obedient on this one! On the other hand, I think that it is important to say that Paul is not taking here about (as in including) issues such as murder or rape or infanticide.

To answer the question “are we to judge those inside,” from the last Scripture, the answer is yes, and Galatians 6:1 tells us which of the two “judgements” we are talking about here. It reads “Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.” So yes we are to judge within the community, but it is to be done gently and with humility. Please note "humility" here is not the false humility of thinking that we must not even say that something is wrong. If that were the case, we could not even discern that someone was caught in a sin.

To sum it up in just a few words then. Neither the Christian not the one who has no such profession should judge in the sense of being self righteous and judgmental. On the other hand this does not mean we should not discern right from wrong, nor that we should ignore human rights violations and the like (I am thinking of Christ in the Temple). Christians are called to a higher morality than we should expect the World to follow. The motivation for the Christian for not doing these things is that they damage our relationship with God, and cut us off from the life of the Spirit. On the other hand Christians are specifically told not to judge the World on these issues, that is not our job! Notwithstanding this, the Scriptures are very clear on how God feels about injustice, oppression and man's inhumanity to man. Christ did not turn a blind eye to these things and neither should we!

I believe that if we properly understand the Scriptures, we would run to them because not only are the things that Scriptures teach good and right and proper, they are smart! So let me invite you to judge (discern) the Scriptures discussed here with sound and just judgement (discernment).

Why won't Christians leave those happy people alone? Issues of cultural relativism

In September of 2008 ABC's Nightline reported a furor over the issue of infanticide that still exists among some of the remote, and not so remote, indigenous tribes in Brazil (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=5861778&page=1#.UC-KIUR35TV). This particular furor erupted in the aftermath of the rescue of a young girl Hakani by an older brother who carried her out of the jungle on his back. Hakani is a member of the Suruwaha Indian tribe, who looked normal when she was born, but when she was 2 she could not walk or talk. The tribe apparently thought she therefore had a monkey's soul, not a child's soul.

Hakani was subsequently adopted by the Suzukis, Christian linguists, who say that when they first saw Hakani she was 5 years old, but weighed only 15 pounds and had scars all over her body. They tell that her parents had committed suicide because they could not bring themselves to kill her. This meant that Hakani was not only alone, but also that she suffered all kinds of physical and emotional abuse for more than three years. It was at that time, the Suzukis recall, that they finally received permission to bring her out of the tribe. She got medical treatment, and learned not only how to walk and talk, but also how to read and write. They report that she is now a beautiful and happy girl, and a fine little artist.

Hakani’s name means smile, and smile shes does as can be seen in her picture http://voiceforlifewhoweare.blogspot.ca/ on the Suzukis' website. The following quotations from the Suzukis are taken directly from that site. “Hakani has inspired her own people to take a stand against their ancient tribal tradition of infanticide. In turn, the courage of these Indians has inspired my husband and me to launch a national movement in Brazil called ATINI which means 'voice for life,' dedicated to saving precious Indigenous children who are at risk of being killed for cultural reasons.”

“More than 20 years of working with the Suruwahara Indians in the Amazon Basin of Brazil have made an impact on our lives. We have not only learned their language and culture, but have come to a point where we are as much a part of their lives and history as they are of ours. We have eaten monkey brains with them, and they have painted our bodies with their beautiful paintings.”

“Over these years we have cried a lot. We have cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle. We have cried with the young single girls who got pregnant and had to watch their fathers kill the babies with bow an arrow. We mourned the death of a mother and father who preferred to commit suicide instead of killing their two sick children. We then learned that one of this couple’s children, a five year old boy, was buried alive by an older brother. He was killed because he was not able to walk or talk.”

Among other things, the remoteness of some of these tribes makes it hard to accurately determine the number of infanticides in Brazil. Official records do not exist, and the statistics are disputed, but ATINI reports that in one tribe alone (the Xingu tribe) close to 30 children are buried alive every year. Reporting on a case similar to that of Hakani, the São Paulo Newspaper Folha (April 06, 2008) informs us that infanticide is practiced in about 20 from more than 200 ethnic groups in Brazil, and that this means the death of twins, children of single mothers and children with mental or physical deficiencies. The same article (http://vozpelavida-midia.blogspot.ca/2008/04/so-paulo-folha-newspaper-tackles.html) chronicles the clash between the view of many Anthropologists who argue that infanticide is a part of the indigenous culture and should therefore not be interfered with, and others who maintain (in accordance with international law to which Brazil subscribes) that the rights of the child should be paramount.

The issue is highly controversial. Anthropologist Mércio Pereira Gomes, who was president of FUNAI (National Foundation of the Indian) during the first four years of Lula’s government, admits that he suffered "a very big dilemma” in the department, on the subject of infanticide. As a citizen, he is against the practice, but as an anthropologist and president of the department, he is against intervention. Another Anthropologist Ricardo Verdum, of INESC (Institute of Socioeconomic Studies), in responding to a draft law to deal with the issue, said that he finds the draft law to be interfering in the free will of the Indians, and that "To want to impose a law is aggressive, it is violence." The irony of his words clearly escapes him!

According to the Folha article Brazil, in 1990, had already constituted the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes "that every child is entitled to life," and that the signatory countries must adopt “all the effective and appropriate measures” to abolish practices that are harmful to a child's health and well-being. In the same article we read “In 2004, the Brazilian government declared, through presidential ordinance, Convention 169 of ILO (International Labor Association), that determines that indigenous and tribal people should be entitled to conserve their customs and own institutions, as long as they are not incompatible with the defined fundamental rights under the national judicial system nor with the internationally recognized human rights."

It seems to me that the intentions of this law and ordinance are balanced and honourable. However the Government has been slow to implement these things. No one should deny that Anthropologists have a point when they condemn the insensitivity of one culture in arbitrarily imposing it's norms, values and customs on another. What is clear to me is that in the past we Christians failed in terms of cultural sensitivity. We were wrong to do that. Dressing up natives in Africa in shirt and tie was not only insensitive to the culture, it was ridiculous. It was however part of the ignorance of the times, and missionaries were not, by a long shot, the only ones who were culturally insensitive during those earlier days (witness British colonialism in India). And I have to say that I hope I won't be judged by more refined future sensibilities of which I, in my ignorance, am currently unaware. C.S. Lewis put the label “chronological snobbery” on the attitude that acts as though we are so much better than our ancestors. I like the way that the English poet Alexander Pope put it, “We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow. Our wiser sons, no doubt, will think us so.” And labelling our fathers foolish is exactly what is happening as we re-interpret history in view of our modern sensibilities when, in the Words of Dinesh D’Souza, we “make passed pale patriarchs ('dead white males') into whipping boys as we condemn colonialism or favour multicultural curricula over a Western 'cultural canon' at our universities” (Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Free Press, 1991).

So yes, Anthropologists are certainly right when they condemn the wholesale overriding of cultural norms and values. But Cultural Anthropology is surely wrong, when it allows it's doctrine of cultural sensitivity to dismiss out of hand human rights violations with their tremendous accompanying sufferings. As I have presented it, it should be clear that there is truth on both sides, unfortunately the two sides are not getting equal air time in the atmosphere that seems to be so heavily loaded in favour of political correctness.

According to the Nightline report the Brazilian government has tried to discourage infanticide, but the Department of Indian Affairs does not have a policy that requires action to stop it from happening. In an interview in the Brazilian capital, Antenor Vaz of the Department of Indian Affairs is quoted as saying "We are not defending death. Very much to the contrary, we are defending the cultural survival of a people." The report indicates that it is a view shared by some activists. In particular is it shared by Fiona Watson of Survival International, a group that defends the rights of native tribes all over the world. Watson is quoted as saying "I'm not going to defend infanticide. But I think you have to understand, that in the context of Indian culture, it's not considered murder.” She says "I have seen that, where a once proud people end up subdued, dependent upon people, because they have lost their beliefs."

It is undeniable that in the past and even now that “once proud people end up subdued, and dependent upon people,” and cultural Anthropology certainly has a role to play in trying to stop that happening. But whatever happened to wisdom, to sound judgement, to thoughtful consideration of the issues? The view of some Anthropologists seems to be “leave them alone,” in a 'one shoe fits all' approach to this issue. To be sure not everything in Western culture is good. But is it not the essence of community that we share what is good and learn from others what is not so good. Does it not make sense to seek to “separate the precious from the vile,” and in order to do that, should we not interact with sensitivity and respect for each other? Must we throw out the baby with the bath water? Are those who are so opposed to Western values opposed to those elements of it to which we surly all agree are good? I am thinking here, for example, of the teachings of Christ that we should love one another in the sacrificial way that He loved us? Are Christian teaching about love, respect and honour all wrong, and unworthy to be shared?

And do we really think in the ever diminishing size of our world, that these tribes will for ever remain untouched by outside influences? Are we so naive to be unaware that any contact at all (even so called “neutral” observation) influences these cultures. And the myth that we can ever be neutral raises its ugly head again here. The Suzukis “cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle.” What would Watson and those of like faith in the absolute virtue of non-intervention do? Would they weep but not be willing to help? Would they stoically keep their distance and refuse basic human kindness lest their beliefs influence these “happy” people? And would this really be neutral, or would it be better described as compassionless apathy. Or perhaps we would prefer the “first contact” to be by the exploitative greed of multinational companies, who do things like giving out free baby formula or the equivalent, until the natural milk dries up and then, having created a market where there none existed, turn round and sell their formula to them?

Certainly Western culture is not all good, and certainly we have made mistakes in the past, but can we not learn from our mistakes as part of our own separating the precious from the vile? And is not better for first contact to be made by the humble, respectful persistent loving gentleness displayed by the likes of the Suzukis, who feel strongly about preserving indigenous language, music, art, and traditional ways? Do we not need to consider what are the alternatives, and especially the above mentioned default? If imposing law is “violence,” why cannot Anthropologists and the Government come along side ATINI with its sensitivity to Indian culture, and which also works with the Indians themselves in the advocacy of indigenous children's rights. We need to ask why it is a non governmental organization such as ATINI that has spearheaded support for those, from within the indigenous communities, who want the kind of change ATINI was inspired by them to work for.

This “who are we (or you) to say that another culture is wrong” philosophy is right to be sensitive to innocent traditions and cultural norms. But it is not a virtuous neutrality, nor is it true humility when it refuses on principle to alleviate untold suffering and human rights abuses. Is it wrong to replace the belief that twins are in and of themselves somehow evil, with the belief that this is not the case, and that the rights of the child should be paramount? And what about the Indian perspective on all of this? In one eye opening and particularly disturbing part of the response to the accusations against them contained in the Nighline article, the Suzukis say “Although representatives from different organizations were able to share their perspectives, this story was ultimately about the tribes. Indigenous leaders came to Brasilia to meet with you -- some of them having traveled over 40 hours from their tribes -- but you excluded their statements from your story. The most important perspective -- of the Indians themselves -- was missed entirely” (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=6788207&page=1#.UC-JX0R35TU).

The Suzukis expected better of the media, so do I! We should in fact demand it!

Wrong for you right for me: The problems of moral relativity

Murder may be wrong for you my brother, but it's right for me. In fact I think it is a jolly good thing. I have found it to be a very effective way of dealing with all kinds of annoying people. The main thing is that I don't get caught :-). Yes I am joking, just in case you had doubts that I am.

Please do not misunderstand me here, there is absolutely no question in my mind that in matters of right and wrong, not everything is either black or white. For the recovering alcoholic just one drink is wrong. However (in spite of the stand of some Christians) neither I nor the Bible condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages period. The Biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine, it is not to abstain absolutely. Some Christians in trying to say that it does mean that, have translated “wine” as “grape juice,” but why we would need to be warned not to get drunk on grape juice escapes me! No, not everything is black and white, but on the other hand back and white do exist, murder, rape, child abuse and widow burning are all not only wrong, they are evil!

The existence of evil seems to me to be self evident, but it goes completely against the grain of our modern thinking where moral relativism rules. This philosophy can, I think, be summed up in the phrase “It's all relative,” or to put this another way there are no absolutes, or there is no such thing as right and wrong. It is the “all” part of 'it's all relative,' that that sticks in my craw. In fact the statement “All truth is relative” is self contradictory, since it is itself an absolute statement. This can be seen by asking “Is absolutely all truth relative?” No doubt some will answer “But we mustn’t judge right? We need to be fair and neutral right?” I will deal with “we must” not judge later. But concerning being fair, how fair is it to victims of rape or child abuse, to say that these things are not wrong?

In a 2002 column Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In talking about American college professors who currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong he says “they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to 'individual values and cultural diversity'." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behaviour are usually left unanswered." I too could wish that there was no such thing as evil in the World, but it seems to me to be wrong to close our eyes to the suffering that flows out of the reality of man's inhumanity to man.

So pervasive and successful is the doctrine of moral relativity that one Canadian professor tells of his inability to get his class to say that female genital mutilation of non-consenting girls is wrong. According to Wikipedia “Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 'all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.' FGM is typically carried out on girls from a few days old to puberty. It may take place in a hospital, but is usually performed, without anesthesia, by a traditional circumciser using a knife, razor, or scissors. According to the WHO, it is practiced in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia."

Or what about the picture that still haunts me, of the 18 year old Afghan woman Aisha, whose mutilated face appeared on the front cover of a 2010 issue of Time magazine. It is reported that “With her clear skin and dark, flowing hair, 18-year-old Aisha would ordinarily have stood out from a crowd because of her beauty. But now, tragically, the young woman is eye-catching for a horrifically different reason. Aisha is a victim of Taliban brutality, her nose and ears barbarically hacked off by her own husband in a warped punishment for attempting to flee her cruel in-laws.” (Google "Taliban nose cut off").

Are we not willing to condemn such action? If we are not, I want to suggest that it is only because we are so far removed from such situations that it really does not affect us emotionally. This is rather like modern warfare, where we press buttons distantly removed from the front, and in so doing fail to see up close and personal, the carnage caused by our antiseptic button pushing. I want to suggest that those who refuse to condemn such actions as that cited above by the Taliban, because their philosophy teaches that “there is no such thing as right and wrong,” would jolly well change their minds if these things were happening to their daughter, or to their sister!

If what I have just said does not move you, I doubt that anything I say will make any sense to you. But though we will need to ask where it comes from, we humans do seem to have this built in “yuck factor,” which tells us clearly that these things are wrong. And we should not ignore such basic moral intuitions, even if we may need to debate and adjust or refine them. They are, as atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen calls them, “bedrock”: He says “It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things [as wife-beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any skeptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil. …” (Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God, rev. ed. (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1990), 10,11).

Certainly we will not be able to right every wrong. For the man and woman of compassion there are, and perhaps always will be, a myriad of causes deserving of our attention, energy and action, and we are all, all too finite. We do need a lot of wisdom to know when, where and how to use our limited resources. We also do not want to be starting wars left, right and centre. But to have followed moral relativity to its logical conclusion during the second World war, would have been to advocate, on principle, a “who are we to intervene” attitude in the face of the murder of six million Jews. To me this would not have been a virtuous neutrality, it would be a compassionless apathy displaying false humility! Unfortunately, as I will show in a later post, I am not just talking here about hypothetical possibilities.

To be sure cultural anthropology (which by and large has swallowed whole the philosophy of moral relativity) has a point about the need to exhibit a certain humility and sensitivity towards the culture and values of others. However I am much more inclined, with the Bible, to condemn as evil, what at times amounts to compassionless apathy. The Bible puts it this way “He who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin!” Is it not true that “all that need to happen for evil to flourish, is for good men (and women) to do nothing”? Do we really want to remain “neutral” in the face of man's inhumanity to man? Let's make no mistake about it, this is not only the logical, in some cases it is the actual, stance of those who hold to moral relativity!

Mercy triumphs over judgement. Provision and Protection

In the last post, I was talking about the consequences of some of the choices we are making in our society. In Psychology we are not allowed to use the concept of right and wrong, of sin or of judgement. But we cannot in the end do without these ideas. So Psychology talks about poor choices and the consequences thereof. A poor choice then is one that has undesirable consequences. This would be more straight forward if we were not so resistant to see the inconvenient truths about the consequences of our choices. Rationalization and denial are widespread in all kinds of areas personal and cooperate, individual and collective. As with the alcoholic, the consequences build up and escalate until, when they have gone on long enough, and have gotten severe enough, we come to the place where it is impossible to ignore them.

The Biblical take on all of this is that when God says "no", He does it for our provision and our protection. It seems to me that many of us have misunderstood this about God. We have seen Him as a kind of Scrooge in the sky who, whenever He sees someone down here having fun, leans over the balcony of heaven and shouts down “Cut that out.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matters is that He has given us in the Bible guidelines which when we follow them, will help us avoid many of the pitfalls I was taking about in the last post, and in addition, will bring us the benefits of righteousness including fullness of life (John 10:10).

You see there is a deeper and more lasting joy than can be found in the pleasures of this world which, in any case are only for a season (Hebrews 11:25). The out of control appetites we develop when we give in to what the Bible calls the lusts of the flesh, keep us from the deeper things. In my coming book “God's math, take away what hinders, add what helps,” I have a chapter called “Random God sums” which illustrates this. So there are subsections with such titles as “take away lust, add intimacy,” or “take away self hate, add self love,” or “take away religion/rules, and add relationship.” The point is that giving into lust is detrimental to developing intimacy, self hate diminishes our sense of self worth, and religion that has as its basis rules rather than relationship with Him, tends to make us into self righteous Pharisees, which in turn prevents us from even seeing our need of an empowering relationship with God. Ignoring the “no”s of God not only takes us out from under His protection, it robs us of His provision which, in the above examples included intimacy, self acceptance and relationship with the most wonderful person in the entire universe!

But He also knows that most of us only learn the hard way (from the school of hard knocks), that His ways are best. And at incredible cost to Himself, He has provided a way for us to come back to a Holy God even when we have thoroughly blown it! There is no pit that we have dug for ourselves that is so deep that He is not deeper still. He came to restore the broken hearted, even when our broken hearts are largely a result of our own actions and attitudes. In the Cross “Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed” (Psalm 85:10).

The very last thing that God wants to do it to judge us. He tells us in John 3:17 “God did not send His Son into the World to condemn the World, but that the World might be saved thorough Him.” When we turn from our rebellion and receive His free gift of salvation “mercy triumphs over judgement” (James 2:13), and we are welcomed into the Kingdom. He then makes available in the here and now “life in all its fullness” (John 10:10). Or to put in the words of another section of Random God sums, He takes “away fear, strife and stress, and add(s) peace and rest, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Most of us won't go there until we are desperate. And this is good in some ways, because until we are desperate, we are not likely to fully surrender which is a necessary part of entering into fullness of life. “Are we there yet mummy?” (April 17).

Harmless, wholesome and healthy? Hardly!

There are many who celebrate the growing “freedom” from the “repressive restraints” of traditional (Judeo Christian) morality. From relaxing the divorce laws, to the permissive attitude towards sexuality, to the almost casual attitude towards having children out of wedlock, to the promotion of gay, lesbian and bisexual lifestyles, it's all all being promoted and presented as harmless, wholesome and healthy. But is it?

Psychology cannot talk about sin, but it can talk about bad choices. Bad choices are those which have harmful or unwanted consequences. There is a reason that we have a government warnings on cigarette packages, it is because smoking can be harmful to your heath. But within the tyranny of political correctness, we have suppressed any such necessary warning about the consequences of the so called new morality. In fact not only do we not have Government warnings about the consequences of bad choices, even the believing Church seems to have lost direction and/or courage to teach and speak out, even to its own people. In one sense it is no wonder, since in this atmosphere of political correctness the first time something (rightly or wrongly) considered offensive is spoken from the pulpit, it is likely to finish up plastered all over national TV. It's all part of the jamming, all part of the deliberate design to ridicule and intimidate any and all opposition into silence. And it is working, but it is producing in us a blindness to the inconvenient truths of our increasingly poor choices, as they continue to escalate out of sight (especially out of sight in the media) and (by the mechanism of denial) out of mind. Some indicators follow:-

No fault, no care, non of our business divorce. Predictably, the liberalization of the divorce laws lead to an increase on the divorce rates. Prior to 1968 in Canada the law granted divorce only on grounds of adultery or cruelty. However the most significant change that “no fault divorce” brought, is that that it essentially licensed unilateral divorce. “No fault” divorce simply makes it easy for just one unhappy partner to leave without explanation or negotiation. This very much reflects the spirit of the age in which accountability and responsibility for one’s actions are at an all-time low. Translate “for better or worse,” as “for better only!”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all of this, as with so much of the liberalizing of our laws, is that it dramatically reduces the protection of those the original laws were designed to protect. I am of course talking about the children. In particular as the close to unanimous well- researched negative effects of divorce on children show, children of divorce, separation and single parent families are at far grater risk than the general population in a multitude of areas. In particular, the research shows that children of divorce suffer a trauma that is a life long phenomenon with the following being just a small sample of what is happening much more immediately:
Fatherless homes account for

• 71% of all high school dropouts
  
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons
  
• 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals
  
• 90% of runaways

Furthermore youth coming from fatherless homes are

• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioural disorders,
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers (girls),
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
• 24.3 times more likely to run away

So are the relaxing of divorce laws harmless wholesome and healthy? You decide! What is to me even more disturbing is that the statistics are no better in the church, where the the spirit of the age also seems to have taken firm hold. In addition, even in the Church many times a blind eye is turned to what is happening with a “no care, not our responsibility” attitude being taken to divorce, even by the leadership. Who is willing to hold the couple accountable to the vows they made between each other and God before the assembled people of God? I know of this absence first hand, as in addition to the law, the church left me powerless to do anything at all to stop my unwanted divorce. No-one who had any influence, even in the Church that married us, was willing to get involved even when approached!

Which best reflects reality, no fault or both fault divorce? It seems to be typical among couples who break up, to lay 100% of the blame on the other party. It's very Biblical actually, it all started with Adam. When God asked him if he had eaten from the tree he was commanded not to eat of, he started his reply with “The woman, You gave ..” In other words, it was the woman's fault, and actually God it was your fault too, You are the one who gave her to me!

Nobody is saying that it is easy for two people to live together, but the vows we make are designed to motive us to work at it. It is my belief that marriage is God's primary tool to make us more like Christ. As iron sharpen iron, so man sharpens man. It is not that long ago that someone I respect told me “I did not realize how selfish I was until I got married.” Since I happen to know the husband exhibits the same humility, I want to say that there is much hope for that marriage! There is no doubt that we need His help to live the life He calls us to, and marital difficulties are a crossroads. Will we continue to live out our lives in our own strength only, having a form of religion but denying the power thereof? Or will we come together to the foot of the cross, allowing Him to settle out disputes, to heal us from our hurts, and to equip us both in the desire and the wherewithal to do what without Him we cannot?

The sexual revolution and safe sex. The first time I asked out the Christian woman I subsequently married, she told me “I don't go to movies.” Without dealing with the legalism that infected much of the Evangelical Church, I want to say that it in many ways it was a wise position to take. There were and are many movies that do less than edify and build you up. And the influence of the media in our lives is subtle, pervasive and a slow death. There's a story about a frog and a kettle. The gist of it is that if you throw a fog into a kettle of boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put the frog in a kettle of cold water and slowly bring it to a boil, the frog won't hop out, it will stay there until it boils to death. It has been used to illustrate all sorts of scenarios, but it illustrates very clearly the erosion of traditional values. And it does work, as advertisers will attest, and it has been used mightily by the militants in the “new morality.”

The weak spot in the “I don't go to movies rule,” was the TV. Movies that shocked seemed tame five years later, and so could safely be watched on the tube. Pictures that graced the front cover of playboy in the 50's now appear on the front covers of magazines that you see in the line up at the supermarket, movies that once would have been declared to be X rated, are now PG 13. In fact as I have said elsewhere we have become a pornographic culture with the vast majority of society either desensitized or intimidated into silence by the ridicule of traditional values as outmoded, archaic and totally unrealistic.

Safe Sex Myth. Nobody disputes the fact that consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of both pregnancy and of sexually transmitted diseases. What is clear from the research however, is that “safe sex” is not as safe as many would have us believe. Accurate quantitative stats on reduction rates when condoms are used, are hard to come by. However, the World Health Organization has stated that "compared with no condom use, consistent condom use resulted in an overall 87 percent reduction in risk of HIV transmission." Those odds by the way, are little better than the odds in Russian roulette where you have an 83.4 percent chance of firing an empty chamber. But no one encourages participation, even though the odds of getting a bullet are relatively low. But encouragement to participate, is by far the biggest problem I have with the liberal agenda, that is that it promotes experimentation. You hear the argument that young people will have sex anyway (what about the fogies?), but should we actively encourage it? Let me throw out a small sample of some of the stats that are verifiable.

There is an ever increasing strain on our embattled healthcare systems that stems from the need to treat sexually transmitted diseases. The last figure I was able to verify was that the bill in the States is more that $17 billion dollars annually on SSD's alone, and climbing. And this is not even to start to assess the cost in terms of mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual health, and the result of all that on substance abuse and crime etc., etc., etc.

The following facts are taken from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's website:
- There are approximately 19 million new cases of STDs per year in the US, most of which occur in young people between the ages of 15 and 24.
- In one study it was found that 25% of all girls between the ages of 14 and 19 in the US were infected with at least one of the most common STDs
- At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.

From http://aids.ezinemark.com/ “It is important to be aware of the damages STDs can do to you.... Chlamydia, being the most common of STDs, can leave you infertile, and often has no symptoms at all.

In light of all this is the encouragement of sexual experimentation the right thing to do? We need to understand that part of the agenda of the left wing militants has been and remains to encourage earlier and earlier sexual experimentation.

Sexual addictions and intimacy. Not all advocates of liberalism take a “I could care less” attitude to what happens to its adherents. Lesbian activist Camille Paglia states “Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible”. She admits reversals are difficult “once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition.” She compares this to the phenomenon “obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction.” She is not quite alone among the activists, but is certainly in a minority when she says that “helping gays to learn to function heterosexually if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim”.

Paglia is of course speaking of same sex issues but both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuous sexual activity is highly addictive, and first time sexual exposures tend to define one sexually. Even the early studies by Masters and Johnson showed that initial sexual behaviours whatever their stripe, tended to perpetuate themselves. This helps to understand cross dressers and the like! In addition, the addictive nature of promiscuous sexual behaviour is known to weaken the one on one bonding mechanism, that nature intended the initial sexual experiences to cement, and is also know to be detrimental to the stability of long term relationships and of intimacy in the same. All of this moreover contributes to the increasing fatherlessness of our culture and as remarked earlier this is known to lead to increased substance abuse and crime, further promiscuity leading to increases in teen pregnancy, abortion rates etc., etc.

So is the undermining of traditional sexual values harmless wholesome and healthy? You decide! On the other hand abstinence movements both religious and non -religious report the following benefits of adhering to tradition values. According to teenhelp.com Some of the benefits that teens find when they practice abstinence include:

• Avoiding sexually transmitted diseases
• Avoiding unplanned pregnancy
• Not getting a bed reputation
• Avoiding some of the emotional consequences of teen sex, especially if the relationship does not work out, including feeling hurt, used, lonely, angry, or depressed
• Better relationships; couples who wait to have sex have healthier, more trusting relationships, and, if they marry, are less likely to divorce, and generally have better sex lives than those who did not wait
• Teen girls who abstain from sex until they are older, and limit sexual partners later in life, are less likely to develop cervical cancer or become infertile
• Unlike other forms of birth control, abstinence costs nothing and has no side effects.

Comparison of GLB and heterosexual statistics. The gay lifestyle is known to be inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual behaviour, with figures of over 500 partners during ones lifetime being not uncommon. In light if this is it any wonder that the rates of infection are higher among gays than among the heterosexual community. But it's not just in terms of physical health where there are huge differences. They are to be found in studies that measure metal and emotional health too. For example a Dutch study found a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study. (Taken from Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, January 2001).

It is important to note that GLB behaviour is much more commonly acceptable in Holland than in North America, minimizing the “guilt trip” factor in this study. If “lack of acceptance” were a major cause of psychiatric pathologies, you would expect to see a lot less pathology in the Netherlands than in North America, and we do not.

Conclusion. So are all or even any of the behaviours that militant advocates of the new morality promote harmless, wholesome and healthy? You tell me! But is there hope to escape once the “sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition?” Some will question whether abstention is a realistic solution, and I will want to address that later in more detail. What I want to say here is that I needed help to come out of my promiscuous life style addictions 40 years ago. The help I needed came from Him with conversion. I am not an isolated case as even the scriptures attest when Paul, speaking to the Corinthian church said “and such were some of you.” That is it difficult to change sexual behaviour even the Scriptures know. Jesus said “He who sins is the slave of sin!” The good news though is that “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed!” With God all things are possible!

We’re in love and want to get married. What's wrong with that?

Face to face: Is it any coincidence that in the midst of blogging about (non-neutral) “value neutral” values, I visited a Church where unexpectedly a homosexual couple came in. One of them stood up and asked if he could speak. When permission was given, he asked the Church to bless their union. The Pastor indicated that she would talk to them afterwards. It wasn't my Church so I didn't have to deal with it, but it did cause me to ask myself the question in the title of the post. This was a long term relationship (certainly as far as these things go), moreover the pair were quiet, respectful even humble, and seemingly very nice people. I don't know much about them, but let's consider the best case scenario. Let's say that this long term relationship was faithful, monogamous, that they truly loved one another and wanted nothing more than to be married and live together in peace “like many Christians do.” What's wrong with that, who is it hurting?

Multiple interconnected issues: Actually my heart went out to this couple. I wanted to make sure they did not feel condemned by me, so I went smiling to them and shook hands. In fact, I think because of this, they approach me first, rather than the Pastor. However since it was not my Church I referred them to her, knowing she would speak the truth in love. Jesus is our role model here (see John 8:1-11). I am not about to cast the first stone, I have nothing to be self righteous about. I have my own struggles in the area of sexuality, and perhaps because of this I feel compassion for all who struggle with theirs. But right here I have a problem, because I also feel compassion for those whose same sex attractions are unwanted, and want out. And I cannot please both sides. If I affirm the rights of the last group to seek help to change, I am in deep trouble with the militants in the Gay community who regard such people as betrayers of the cause. What I am saying is that you cannot get into same sex issues without, at the same time also getting into a whole host of related issues. It's something of a Pandora's box. We need to be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. And I need to say a few things before I respond to the presenting issue here. Please bear with me as I do this.

Feeling trapped by our desires: I have heard some say they feel trapped by their same sex attractions. I have struggled with unwanted sexual desires myself, so I know at least something about that. Perhaps it is for this reason that I feel a particularly deep compassion for this second group mentioned above. I read an article recently entitled “Cheated by the Affirming Church,” it's Googleable. In it the author asks “Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice?” He goes on to say “My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.” That it is bad for him is a whole subject in and of itself. But Christians have always maintained that when God says “no” it is for our provision and protection. What a coincidence that my doing everything my heart desires is bad for me :-). You can Google “homosexuality physical emotional health” and check it out for yourself. You will of course get a mixture of views, and you do need to know that both sides accuse the other of using bias in their studies. In his book “The Marketing of evil,” David Kupelian documents the use of falsification and extreme bias at the beginning of the politically correct propaganda war. I can thoroughly recommend this book, it's an eye opener! In terms of damage, the physical and emotional health risks and the emotional pain are far greater than can be explained as resulting from guilt trips by bigoted Christians!

The right or wrong encouragement? But back to my point, the author of the article who wanted to remain anonymous (I wonder why!) further says “I wanted to believe the message of the affirming church—that I was born this way, that I couldn't be happy without accepting my homosexuality, and that I couldn't change.” He emphasizes that wanting to believe it was indeed the problem. He tells of the years he spend in bondage to lust. He says “Over and over, I would quit, shamed beyond measure. But the message that I should embrace my identity as a 'gay Christian' continued to entice me, and I would return to my self-made prison.” The very last thing that he needed was to be told to embrace it. He likens it to the physician who tells her patient to embrace his cancer, or to telling the alcoholic to celebrate his alcoholism “It's who you are brother!” We do need to respect the alcoholic as a person. The Christian has every reason to do this, because we know that the alcoholic, the homosexual etc., no less than we are, are made in the image of God, and therefore are precious souls worthy of dignity. We Christians must do much more than tolerate such people, we must afford them love and dignity. We can, and must, do this without withholding life giving truth to those who will listen!

Is disagreement the same as hate? We Christians are accused of hating homosexuals for doing nothing more than disagreeing with them, but would it be hate or compassion to tell the alcoholic to embrace his identity as a drunk? If disagreement is the same as hate, then the proponents of political correctness certainly hate us Conservatives! Clearly disagreement and hate can coexist, but they are not synonymous. On the other hand, if as we Christians claim it is the truth (spoken in love) that sets us free, would it be loving or unloving to withhold the truth from those who are in denial? J. Budzsizewski sums up well what I want to say here, he says “Real compassion aught to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl to prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner, give the alcoholic a drink, send the girl to the abortionist and tell the kid just to give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”

The need for a working principle. One more thing, I said earlier that there are a whole bunch of associated issues that we (at least I) cannot ignore. I also called the same sex issue a presenting issue. It's a symptom issue if you like, that is very much tied in with the “values neutral” lie (see June 3rd blog). So the one more thing is that there is a core issue which we must address first, and that is to discover a way, a principle if you like, of how to deal with all of these related issues. We can then apply the principle to the same sex marriage question. The task then involves coming up with a working principle that is fair and tolerant, but one which looks for the greatest good, rather than getting hung up and deciding general rules/laws that apply to all, but are based only on trying to solve only the especially difficult special cases.

Laws based on the exception rather than the rule, make bad laws. And this last thing, getting hung up on the especially difficult special cases, is what we have done. In particular we have made laws that deal with special cases, but leave normal cases in chaos. The implications for the rule (as opposed to the exception) are ignored. But laws based on difficult exceptions are notoriously bad laws, which in turn lead to even worse laws. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, I do not think that you can say that what we currently have in Canada is a good thing. It all started with the pleading of special cases but lead ultimately to the non-existence of any law at all on this issue. So one day before delivery abortion is not illegal, but one day after delivery it is. How much sense does that make? And what a mockery of the original rational which argued the special cases of rape and mother's health, morphing to questions of viability, and/or of the place in time where the fetus feels pain, etc., etc. Similarly the making bad laws on issues like euthanasia and assisted suicide, likewise arose by special pleading in Scandinavian countries. The weakening of the law there has lead there to widespread abuse that can be perpetrated with relative impunity. No, laws changed to respond to particularly difficult cases have left defenseless those the original laws were intended to protect.

Principle: To prohibit, permit or promote? So what shall we propose? Well there are basically three (and only three) positions an authority (government, Church etc.) can take on a moral issue. Firstly they can prohibit it, secondly they can permit it, or thirdly they can promote it. Let's look at them, homosexuality was prohibited in the past, and like prohibition (of alcohol) in the states, it does not work. People do it anyway, and decriminalizing homosexuality was, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Secondly we can permit it. In a free society there are a multitude of harmful things that we permit, and rightly so. So we permit smoking, and we permit alcohol. What we must not do, is to promote these things. Why? Well there is a reason for the law that says we must put warnings on cigarette packages? It is because the behavior is harmful. It is true that some people who smoke outlive some who do not, but these special cases are not, and should not be taken as a reason to revoke the law. The permitting part of the trio of positions has to do with tolerance, sensitivity and freedom. The problem with the whole politically correct agenda, is that is it not satisfied with the second option, it wants us all to say that homosexual and promiscuous heterosexual behaviour is harmless, healthy and wholesome. But the research does not show this. Even by using biased samples those with the politically correct agenda have not been able to overthrow the evidence that those engaged in such activities are at much higher risk of all sorts of heath concerns, have more Psychological problems, higher suicide rates etc., etc. In short the "harmless, healthy and wholesome" bit is a lie!

Applying this to the same sex marriage question. So to come to the special case. I would ask first of all, if loving, monogamous, faithful long term relationships are the rule or the exception to the rule among homosexuals. If you don't know the answer Google does! Check it out for yourself! They are indeed the exception not the rule. Next, “who is it hurting?” I think it is hurts us all to promote it. I think it is hurts those who might not otherwise get involved, if it were not promoted as a good thing. I think it hurts the homosexual him (her) self, as he or she indulges in the risks of it all. I think it hurts society, as it has to deal with the cost and the consequences of this highly risky behaviour. And lastly it ultimately hurts me, as I worry that the highly seductive nature of the in your face everywhere present propaganda will impact and lead my grandchildren and others I love, astray. The promotion of it encourages them to experiment with highly addictive and destructive behaviour. You see there is absolutely no doubt in my mind firstly, that the propaganda is being very, very successful, and secondly that is harmful in many, many ways. Last but by no means least, I fear that it will seduce many away from the comfort and peace and joy and hope of a close relationship that by experience, I know they can have with God. It is true that He will welcome the lost and repentant sheep home at any time, and that heaven will rejoice if and when it happens, but I, and I believe He, would spare them and you, all the pain. Please note that this is not "do as I say, not as I do." This is saying "Please do not do what I did, because as the school or hard knocks has taught me, it will lead you into endless pain and problems.

In a nutshell. So with respect to the trio prohibition, permission or promotion, I do not advocate the prohibition of homosexual activity, I do advocate that we tolerate and permit homosexual activity. But when you ask me if I am willing to advocate and encourage the promotion of a behaviour that has been shown to be medically fraught with risk, I am sorry but the answer is no. And I do not think the government or the Church should advocate promotion of medical and Psychological risky behaviour either. And to give the bottom line answer to the question, that is exactly what making same sex marriage legal, or affirming it in the Church, does. Does this show lack of compassion? As I have already said, true compassion speaks the truth in love. My primary role model says it well. To the woman caught in the very act of adultery He said “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He also provides the way to escape, for He also said "If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).