I marvel many times at how the so-called "postmodern" mindset has effected every aspect of life in the United States. We deconstruct everything these days. Language is used in whatever way the user deems appropriate. We are currently asking one word questions: Really? Seriously? I heard a commercial for Taco Bell that described the amount of meat in a new flatbread sandwich as "epic." We look to compartmentalize every facet of life into specialized slices of ever-diminishing scope, and although we may participate in two different facets at the same time the attitude is "never the twain shall meet." A student can be in class taking part in a text message "conversation" with a friend and be called down for not paying attention, to the which the student promptly responds with all seriousness, "What's one thing got to do with the other?" or probably more accurately, "Seriously?"
And so I read of the debt reduction supercommittee failure, the occupy every city USA issues, the scandals and alleged scandals at Penn State and Syracuse and wonder if anyone else sees the common thread linking all three issues. One is strictly political, right? One is strictly social, right? One is strictly moral, right?
I watched part of the American Music Awards on Sunday night. I have always felt that singers/songwriters are projecting the raw emotions and attitudes of the generation as well as any other medium. Listening to the lyrics (or reading them) of the most popular songs gives a pretty good indicator for how things are going. As it turns out one of the songs actually spoke directly to the linkage previously described. The song was by Enrique Iglesius and it is called "I Like How It Feels." Below is the first stanza and the chorus:
It's my time, it's my life,
I can do what I like
For the price of a smile, I gotta take it to right
So I keep living, 'cause the feel's right
And it's so nice, and i'd do it all again,
This time, it's forever
It gets better, and I I, I like how it feels
I like how it feels, I like how it feels
I like how it feels, I like how it feels
I like how it feels, I like how it feels
Amazing how a contemporary pop artist can funnel down all the biggest topics of the day into a few short minutes of music, isn't it? Why did the supercommittee talks break down? Why did the Occupy groups form and why are there so many problems within the protest groups? Why are there scandals at major University sports programs? Isn't it simply because everyone is doing exactly what this song says? Every individual has deconstructed life into tiny slices, all disconnected from all the other slices, and does what they like based on how they feel because it's their life and it's their time. I wonder if anyone else realizes that kind of existence is ultimately unliveable. Society cannot function if that is the pervading attitude.
The point is something has to be an underlying principle that defines human existence and ties all aspects of life together. If that underlying principle is "it's my time, it's my life, I can do what I like" then all of life is based on a feeling and is therefore completely arbitrary. At some point the realization must strike that as human beings there are principles that govern our lives, objective principles that apply whether we acknowledge them or not. We are hit in the face with them every day. Most simply stated, we know what is right, we don't do it. A purely existential life de-values life, allows for compartmentalization and deconstruction of human existence. While trying to build a meaning for life one piece at a time, we are actually acquiescing to an existence completely devoid of any ultimate meaning.
When will the supercommittee be able to make headway? When will the occupiers not have a reason to protest and not have such a self assigned important venture implode? When will abuse and violation of others really come to an end? The answer is the same as it has always been, since nearly the very beginning of human existence - when each and every individual lives according to the purpose for their existence: to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. What does that really mean? Put down the iPhone, get off Facebook and Twitter, turn off the TV, get in a room alone and pray, asking God to reveal that purpose, His redemptive plan through His Son Christ Jesus, and what it all really means.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Friday, June 11, 2010
Some Things Just Make Me Laugh
So i'm riding down the highway yesterday and an SUV swerves over in front of the vehicle i'm riding in at the last minute. We were coming up on a lane merger due to road construction and apparently there was much to be gained by risking an accident to be one spot closer to the end of a line of gridlocked vehicles. Since we are just sitting there, and i'm doing some serious thinking about some blog comments and discussion i'm having at another site, I take a minute and focus on the back windshield of said SUV. At that point I first noticed that some text was present. I like to read and think so I focus on some Gothic-type lettering of about 16 point size that read "2 Fast 4 U, See Ya!"
I immediately began to laugh, and laughed harder the more I thought about it. The driver was sitting in gridlock. For at least 5 full minutes of waiting for what must have been at least 8 traffic light cycles, i'm staring at this statement that the vehicle ahead of me is too fast for me and he/she will see me later. In fact, the text was so small from the standpoint of driving perspective, and in such an unorthodox lettering that it took a good bit of time to clearly decipher the message. The fact that I had more than enough time to read the driver's statement that he/she was too fast for me was enough to bring up another round of laughter. In fact, the only situation in which I could think the message would even be applicable would be on the interstate where he/she would be passing people at a decent clip. In that situation, in the only situation that would even warrant having that lettering on the back of the vehicle, no one could even read the message. I just kept thinking to myself, the only way the message makes sense is if no one is able to read it.
I'm not going to take the time to make some grand statement about logic and taking two minutes to engage the brain to think about the possible ramifications of actions, but instead just let it go. In fact, i'm tempted to say that the message and the effort it took to produce it was a complete waste of time, but I did get a great laugh.
I immediately began to laugh, and laughed harder the more I thought about it. The driver was sitting in gridlock. For at least 5 full minutes of waiting for what must have been at least 8 traffic light cycles, i'm staring at this statement that the vehicle ahead of me is too fast for me and he/she will see me later. In fact, the text was so small from the standpoint of driving perspective, and in such an unorthodox lettering that it took a good bit of time to clearly decipher the message. The fact that I had more than enough time to read the driver's statement that he/she was too fast for me was enough to bring up another round of laughter. In fact, the only situation in which I could think the message would even be applicable would be on the interstate where he/she would be passing people at a decent clip. In that situation, in the only situation that would even warrant having that lettering on the back of the vehicle, no one could even read the message. I just kept thinking to myself, the only way the message makes sense is if no one is able to read it.
I'm not going to take the time to make some grand statement about logic and taking two minutes to engage the brain to think about the possible ramifications of actions, but instead just let it go. In fact, i'm tempted to say that the message and the effort it took to produce it was a complete waste of time, but I did get a great laugh.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Cultural Shift, Majority Rule or Might Makes Right?
In reading the local paper this morning, I came across the following headline: "Cultural shift driving change in military's gay policy." This was an associated press story, and the link to the entire article (dated February 3, 2010) is provided below, along with a previous piece dated February 2, 2010):
AP Article - Change in Military's Gay Policy
AP Article - Signs of Cultural Shift
My intention here is not to deal with the merit of men or women who have adopted and espouse a homosexual lifestyle actively serving in the military, whether under "Don't ask, Don't tell" or otherwise. Rather, my concern is more to how we are making decisions in this nation on important moral, ethical and lifestyle issues in our contemporary culture.
Even up to the near recent past, homosexuality as a lifestyle was considered wrong. Morally wrong as a lifestyle because it was considered sinful, and hurtful to the individual and to the society at large. This feeling was largely based on the stance on such issues from a Biblical framework. Biblically the behavior, lifestyle and/or practice is never condoned and is in every case condemned as abhorrent and profane. The position was clear, the behavior was morally wrong.
In the two articles, however, the idea of right and wrong is absent from the text. In its place are peppered phrases like, "attitudes and circumstances have changed", "gays and lesbians have been given comprehensive legal status as a protected class", "59 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", and "the US census has for the first time begun tabulating information about gay couples who live together." It begs the question, "What does this have to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong?"
The more I pondered the topic, the more I began to think that the articles did say something about right or wrong. Perhaps in our contemporary culture whatever is popular culturally at any given time is the right thing, morally, ethically or otherwise. Perhaps the comments about attitudes, opinions, and circumstances are the pure determining factor as to good, right and truth.
If this is the case, if what is good, right and true is determined by culture then there are some ramifications that must be acknowledged. If that is the case, then we in America have chosen to call God a liar, or at least have told Him that He cannot exist. We will have arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of deciding that which is right and that which is wrong. Whatever God has called good and right is heretofore irrelevant in our society. We are choosing to expel God and instead ourselves be the pure measure of all things. Maybe that's the way we want it, maybe we see this as our culture to do with as we wish, maybe we like having the power to decide for ourselves.
I can only say, beware. We have seen, and we have been told before how that kind of experiment will turn out. If God does not exist, then we have no excuse and must live up totally with the cultural outworkings of that kind of ideology. If popular opinion is the litmus test for right and wrong, if God does not exist and is irrelevant in moral choices and we are nothing more than a mindless, pointless collocation of atoms existing only to pass on genetic information then nature read in tooth and claw is the only way, and what remains is not good or bad, objective right or wrong, but might makes right. First the majority will rule, and decide how culture will go. Then a popularly elected body will decide for everyone how things will go. Eventually one man (or woman) will decide how things will go, and those who sound the victory bell now will hear the death knell of freedom and liberty and cry out for answers as to why it all came to pass.
Is this synical, maybe. Is this extremist fear, hardly. We have countless accounts through the years of the dangers of a culture driven by the winds of cultural "attitudes and circumstances". The founders of this nation were keenly aware of the precipice on which this democratic republic stood, and how a religious backdrop was absolutely necessary for morals and the established government to function. Not Church control of the government, but a society (public, private, government or otherwise) submitted and obedient to an absolute Governer.
I am not addressing here whether or not homosexual men or women should be allowed to serve in the military. I do not fear or hate any homosexual man or woman. What I do know is that if such weighty and important moral and ethical questions are to be left to public opinion, to majority rule, to an ideal of might makes right then our nation is not on the proverbial slippery slope, but has rather stepped off the edge by inverting reality by denying what God has deemed good and right and true and instead arrogating to ourselves that solemn duty.
AP Article - Change in Military's Gay Policy
AP Article - Signs of Cultural Shift
My intention here is not to deal with the merit of men or women who have adopted and espouse a homosexual lifestyle actively serving in the military, whether under "Don't ask, Don't tell" or otherwise. Rather, my concern is more to how we are making decisions in this nation on important moral, ethical and lifestyle issues in our contemporary culture.
Even up to the near recent past, homosexuality as a lifestyle was considered wrong. Morally wrong as a lifestyle because it was considered sinful, and hurtful to the individual and to the society at large. This feeling was largely based on the stance on such issues from a Biblical framework. Biblically the behavior, lifestyle and/or practice is never condoned and is in every case condemned as abhorrent and profane. The position was clear, the behavior was morally wrong.
In the two articles, however, the idea of right and wrong is absent from the text. In its place are peppered phrases like, "attitudes and circumstances have changed", "gays and lesbians have been given comprehensive legal status as a protected class", "59 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", and "the US census has for the first time begun tabulating information about gay couples who live together." It begs the question, "What does this have to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong?"
The more I pondered the topic, the more I began to think that the articles did say something about right or wrong. Perhaps in our contemporary culture whatever is popular culturally at any given time is the right thing, morally, ethically or otherwise. Perhaps the comments about attitudes, opinions, and circumstances are the pure determining factor as to good, right and truth.
If this is the case, if what is good, right and true is determined by culture then there are some ramifications that must be acknowledged. If that is the case, then we in America have chosen to call God a liar, or at least have told Him that He cannot exist. We will have arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of deciding that which is right and that which is wrong. Whatever God has called good and right is heretofore irrelevant in our society. We are choosing to expel God and instead ourselves be the pure measure of all things. Maybe that's the way we want it, maybe we see this as our culture to do with as we wish, maybe we like having the power to decide for ourselves.
I can only say, beware. We have seen, and we have been told before how that kind of experiment will turn out. If God does not exist, then we have no excuse and must live up totally with the cultural outworkings of that kind of ideology. If popular opinion is the litmus test for right and wrong, if God does not exist and is irrelevant in moral choices and we are nothing more than a mindless, pointless collocation of atoms existing only to pass on genetic information then nature read in tooth and claw is the only way, and what remains is not good or bad, objective right or wrong, but might makes right. First the majority will rule, and decide how culture will go. Then a popularly elected body will decide for everyone how things will go. Eventually one man (or woman) will decide how things will go, and those who sound the victory bell now will hear the death knell of freedom and liberty and cry out for answers as to why it all came to pass.
Is this synical, maybe. Is this extremist fear, hardly. We have countless accounts through the years of the dangers of a culture driven by the winds of cultural "attitudes and circumstances". The founders of this nation were keenly aware of the precipice on which this democratic republic stood, and how a religious backdrop was absolutely necessary for morals and the established government to function. Not Church control of the government, but a society (public, private, government or otherwise) submitted and obedient to an absolute Governer.
I am not addressing here whether or not homosexual men or women should be allowed to serve in the military. I do not fear or hate any homosexual man or woman. What I do know is that if such weighty and important moral and ethical questions are to be left to public opinion, to majority rule, to an ideal of might makes right then our nation is not on the proverbial slippery slope, but has rather stepped off the edge by inverting reality by denying what God has deemed good and right and true and instead arrogating to ourselves that solemn duty.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Re-Defining Marriage?
What is marriage anyway? It seems this question above any other ought to be explored these days. In the last week i've seen no less than three articles in the local paper and have heard even more relative to the upcoming Health Care Bill discussions speaking to the status of marriage in the United States, more states expanding marriage to gay and lesbian couples (Washington D.C. being the latest) and other related topics. Following are my thoughts on the subject for what they are worth:
First off, my starting point is similar to the one I presented in the last post on abortion, namely if marriage is just the joining of two entities who desire to enter into the state recognized union then by all means let there be no bounds on which two entities go through the process and call themselves married. I don't intend to be crass or jocular at all in saying this, but if we continue down the road we are on I really don't think it will be that long until there is an outcry because a person cannot be married to their pet. And why not? If marriage is just the union of two entities who are dedicated to one another and who desire to live in the same home in a caring relationship then why should that not cover the situation I just described? There are many who care deeply for their pets and in some situations the pet is very much loved and real caring relationship exists.
Re-defining marriage is only a problem if marriage was originally ordained by God as the Bible describes. In other words, if man decides what constitutes marriage then it will always be in a state of flux. As moods and conditions change, marriage as defined by the culture's ever changing attitudes must change as well. However, if the Bible is true and the Biblical definition of marriage is true, then regardless of how culture changes marriage cannot change. Why is that? Why do Christians get so upset when gays and lesbians protest so vehemently to be included in marriage?
The answer is really quite simple. God established marriage between a man and a woman as a picture, elsewhere described in the Bible as between Jesus and the Church, and also as a reflection of the very nature of God in the Trinity. How so? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have existed in the Trinity from eternity in a perfect relationship of community. When God decided to create man, He said it was not good that man be alone and gave him a helpmeet, a partner of his own body to exist with in a relationship, namely woman (taken from man). The man and the woman come together in an intimate way and the Holy Spirit then participates to knit the new life together in the mother's womb. There is no other union where this particular arrangement, which was so beautifully orchestrated, can take place. This is why there is no place in Scripture where homosexual relations are anything but condemned. It is not that feelings are not present, or the desire to be intimate is not present, it is that any relationship other than that established by God does not reflect the glory of the relationship in the Trinity. It does not bring glory to God, and therefore is a perversion of the natural, and should be condemned in any time and in any situation.
As to the sexual preferences of individuals the same sort of closer look is needed. Desires and feelings for things other than those prescribed by God are real. They are just as real as the desire to lie, to cheat, to steal, to dishonor parents. As believers, we must acknowledge that the standard is the same for all sin, it is all deplorable for the same reason: we were created to bring glory to God, when we break His law whether in word, in thought, or in deed we fail to do as we were intended and are in need of forgiveness. Faithfulness here I believe is the key. We must either be faithful to God in being single, or be faithful to God in being married as God established. In this point the Christian has done much damage over the years by not holding up the lifelong commitment and cheapened the covenant of marriage itself. Just think, is it possible for the Trinity to be seperated? That is exactly what divorce implies, that God can be seperated and eternal covenants can be broken. The limitations of humankind, the fall of man and the subsequent provisions for divorce are not being discussed here, but the point remains that as Christians we must hold up our end of the bargain and not say on the one hand that marriage is a covenant relationship established by God and then run to divorce. In "The Loving Opposition", Stanton L. Jones puts it this way, "Outside of the marriage of a man and woman, the proper use of sex is to honor God by costly obedience in living a chaste life...And so, the Christian vision for sexuality and marriage is our foundational reason for rejecting homosexual action as a legitimate moral option."
For the Christian, essence preceeds existance. By that I mean that who we are should define what we do. God created us to bring Him glory through being obedient to His Word, living our lives for Him in whatever circumstance or situation we are in, in short to use the free will with which we were created to actively pursue righteousness. This is why marriage is such an important issue for believers, why homosexuality is similar to all other sin, it is attempting to revise or redefine our very essence, who we are, what we were created to be.
This is a tough issue and I hope this post has been presented in a way that lovingly but sternly addresses the issue from a Biblical point of view. Quite simply, if the Bible is true then marriage is only defined and only legitimate if the arrangement is in accordance with the Word. If marriage is defined by majority decision, or cultural climate, or poll data, or popular opinion then it can be anything and everything. For my part, I believe even the idea that marriage can be re-defined is to believe a lie. Marriage was established by God and will always be just as He originally gave it. What contemporary culture chooses to call marriage, is not marriage re-defined, it is not marriage at all.
First off, my starting point is similar to the one I presented in the last post on abortion, namely if marriage is just the joining of two entities who desire to enter into the state recognized union then by all means let there be no bounds on which two entities go through the process and call themselves married. I don't intend to be crass or jocular at all in saying this, but if we continue down the road we are on I really don't think it will be that long until there is an outcry because a person cannot be married to their pet. And why not? If marriage is just the union of two entities who are dedicated to one another and who desire to live in the same home in a caring relationship then why should that not cover the situation I just described? There are many who care deeply for their pets and in some situations the pet is very much loved and real caring relationship exists.
Re-defining marriage is only a problem if marriage was originally ordained by God as the Bible describes. In other words, if man decides what constitutes marriage then it will always be in a state of flux. As moods and conditions change, marriage as defined by the culture's ever changing attitudes must change as well. However, if the Bible is true and the Biblical definition of marriage is true, then regardless of how culture changes marriage cannot change. Why is that? Why do Christians get so upset when gays and lesbians protest so vehemently to be included in marriage?
The answer is really quite simple. God established marriage between a man and a woman as a picture, elsewhere described in the Bible as between Jesus and the Church, and also as a reflection of the very nature of God in the Trinity. How so? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have existed in the Trinity from eternity in a perfect relationship of community. When God decided to create man, He said it was not good that man be alone and gave him a helpmeet, a partner of his own body to exist with in a relationship, namely woman (taken from man). The man and the woman come together in an intimate way and the Holy Spirit then participates to knit the new life together in the mother's womb. There is no other union where this particular arrangement, which was so beautifully orchestrated, can take place. This is why there is no place in Scripture where homosexual relations are anything but condemned. It is not that feelings are not present, or the desire to be intimate is not present, it is that any relationship other than that established by God does not reflect the glory of the relationship in the Trinity. It does not bring glory to God, and therefore is a perversion of the natural, and should be condemned in any time and in any situation.
As to the sexual preferences of individuals the same sort of closer look is needed. Desires and feelings for things other than those prescribed by God are real. They are just as real as the desire to lie, to cheat, to steal, to dishonor parents. As believers, we must acknowledge that the standard is the same for all sin, it is all deplorable for the same reason: we were created to bring glory to God, when we break His law whether in word, in thought, or in deed we fail to do as we were intended and are in need of forgiveness. Faithfulness here I believe is the key. We must either be faithful to God in being single, or be faithful to God in being married as God established. In this point the Christian has done much damage over the years by not holding up the lifelong commitment and cheapened the covenant of marriage itself. Just think, is it possible for the Trinity to be seperated? That is exactly what divorce implies, that God can be seperated and eternal covenants can be broken. The limitations of humankind, the fall of man and the subsequent provisions for divorce are not being discussed here, but the point remains that as Christians we must hold up our end of the bargain and not say on the one hand that marriage is a covenant relationship established by God and then run to divorce. In "The Loving Opposition", Stanton L. Jones puts it this way, "Outside of the marriage of a man and woman, the proper use of sex is to honor God by costly obedience in living a chaste life...And so, the Christian vision for sexuality and marriage is our foundational reason for rejecting homosexual action as a legitimate moral option."
For the Christian, essence preceeds existance. By that I mean that who we are should define what we do. God created us to bring Him glory through being obedient to His Word, living our lives for Him in whatever circumstance or situation we are in, in short to use the free will with which we were created to actively pursue righteousness. This is why marriage is such an important issue for believers, why homosexuality is similar to all other sin, it is attempting to revise or redefine our very essence, who we are, what we were created to be.
This is a tough issue and I hope this post has been presented in a way that lovingly but sternly addresses the issue from a Biblical point of view. Quite simply, if the Bible is true then marriage is only defined and only legitimate if the arrangement is in accordance with the Word. If marriage is defined by majority decision, or cultural climate, or poll data, or popular opinion then it can be anything and everything. For my part, I believe even the idea that marriage can be re-defined is to believe a lie. Marriage was established by God and will always be just as He originally gave it. What contemporary culture chooses to call marriage, is not marriage re-defined, it is not marriage at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)