For the first eight years of my life I stood in front of an ancient oak tree in front of my family home on South Highway, McGehee, Arkansas, and caught a big yellow school bus to McGehee Elementary School. My buddies, Craig Towles and Pip Runyan, wickedly violated school bus riding etiquette and abandoned their boring bus stop two doors down and joined me so that we could surreptitiously deposit acorns AKA pretend “soldiers” in the middle of the road to be squashed by speeding autos AKA pretend German Panzer Tanks. The old oak tree liberally deposited brave acorn Wehrmacht African Korps recruits on the crab grass carpet that my grandmother had futilely tried to replace with St. Augustine grass.
We made the most of the oak’s munificence. Those little buggers made a wonderful chartreuse stain on the already steaming South Highway concrete crown. This was innocent enough—no one would miss a few acorns from a stupid oak tree—but before long, you guessed it, we—more precisely Pip—who was always full of errant but terribly interesting pretend scenarios—that boy always worried Craig and me—suggested that we abandon the acorns and started throwing grenades AKA rocks at passing cars (Pip will deny this of course but you must corroborate this story with Craig). We finally hit (blew up) a few Tiger Tanks and got into big trouble (were captured by the enemy—the Gestapo—and were thoroughly punished–our parents beat the crap out of us).
The truth is Jimmy, Craig, Pip alone would not do such a depraved thing (well maybe Pip would do it—he tortured cats too). In a group, together, however, such a thing not only was plausible, it was downright desirable. Jimmy, Craig, and Pip did things Jimmy or Craig or Pip would never do alone. In a crowd we did things we would not do as individuals.
A Christian theologian named Reinhold Niebuhr said as much in a book he wrote called Moral Man and Immoral Society. Niebuhr insisted that public politics is concerned with correcting, balancing as it were, the sinfulness of human nature, that is, the self-centeredness of individuals and groups. But he understood that while little boys, and political despots might behave nicely if they are alone, in groups, they became monsters. He suggested that moral men became immoral men when they were together in a social group.
Niebuhr fervently hoped that a person would experience redemption and thereby redeem his society by a Hegelian, reductionist struggle with sinfulness. Hegel said, in short, that folks changed as they struggled with life. Hegel hoped that people came through a struggle, hard times, as better people. Just like my mother hoped that my whipping for throwing the rocks with Craig and Pip would cause me to be a better person too. In my case, the mental dissonance, combined with physical pain, worked! I have never thrown rocks at cars since then. I still relieve myself outside behind another oak tree once in a while—another terrible thing that Pip and Craig taught me to do and my fussy mother told me not to do—but, hey, I live on a farm! But I have never thrown rocks at cars.
Niebuhr advanced the thesis that what the individual is able to achieve singly cannot be a possibility for social groups. He believed that Jimmy Stobaugh would be a good boy alone but inevitably, without a doubt, once he was with Craig and Pip or his other buddies he would indulge in chicanery. It was inevitable. Thus, Niebuhr believed in moral individuals and immoral societies or groups. He called it “the herd mentality.”
In other words, Niebuhr correctly saw the immorality of systems in society (e.g., social welfare) and its futile attempts to ameliorate individuals and their needs through systemic interventions. In other words, Niebuhr was not naïve — he knew that systems and cultures change and individual hearts change. But it was much harder to convince a group to change than an individual.
Niebuhr warned that one should try to change individual hearts first, but, in a last resort, power could and should be used to stop societies from harming its members and then other societies.
Once Craig and I were melting down Mr. Chilcoat’s discarded tar shingles to make spears. We were full of bad ideas but they always exhibited élan and ingenuity. We carefully placed the tar shingles in empty discarded metal pork and bean cans sitting in a roaring fire. Once the tar was bubbling we placed old broom handles in the mixture and, once the broom handles were removed, and the tar somewhat cooled, we place stone heads–carefully chiseled as surrogate Indian spear heads–into the warm tar. Thus, we created a alligator killing weapon that we used to kill pretend reptiles in Mrs. Beck’s water garden.
My dad, observing our behavior, and, furthermore, discerning the obvious dangers of placing boiling tar and eight year old boys in the same vicinity, prophetically warned, “Jimmy, stop or you will burn yourself badly.”
Well, he was right. Within the next hour I spilled burning tar on my right hand causing painful third degree burns. I spent the rest of the day in Dr. Parker’s waiting room. Even looking at lovely Jane Parker, Dr. Parker’s oldest daughter, my first heartthrob, only to be replaced by perennial goddess Jamie Fraser the following year, could not mitigate the pain. It was a Sunday afternoon and Jane had accompanied her dad to his office, which was normally closed. I longingly lobbied for curative sympathy from this exquisite beauty but Jane, always the pragmatist, simply thought I was stupid and resented that her dad had to waste his time on such a dope.
The thing is, I always wondered, why didn’t my dad STOP me from burning Mr. Chilcoat’s roof shingles and, more pointedly, from burning to the third degree his accident prone, stupid middle son’s hand? What if I had killed myself or something? I imagined Dad saying, “Well Jimmys dead—I told him it was going to happen.” Or “Well, now what am I going to do—there is no one to take the trash out in the morning!” My dad would have been sorry, I was convinced if the fates of burning tar had snatched me from this world
Or, worse, what if I hurt Craig—something I was always doing. Poor Craig, more times than not, got hurt more often by my dim-witted choices than I did. Craig got four stitches in his chin the next year when I caught his face with an army surplus shovel as we dug fox holes to escape the inevitable Japanese Banzai charge that would be visited on us at Guadalcanal. Didn’t Dad at least want to protect poor Craig? It would have been pretty embarrassing to tell Mom, and Mrs. Towles, “Sorry to tell you—Jimmy and Craig were killed while making tar spears to kill pretend alligators in Mrs. Beck’s water garden.” Pathetic parenting.
I once asked Dad and Dad with an iconic grin responded, “Jimmy, even at age eight, you manifested an obduracy that I could not overcome. In the presence of Craig, in order to maintain your pride, I knew you would never listen to me. You needed to experience the consequences of your actions before you would stop the action.”
Especially as I look down right now, as I type this digital magazine, and I look at my scarred right hand I realize my sagacious father was right.
Dad’s point was, individuals may be sincere in their understanding about several issues. In fact, they may be right about some issues. But they are wrong,
too. But when that group gains political hegemony, it can lose focus and direction and can do immoral things—like throwing rocks at cars—and stupid things—like making tar spears.
Individuals can be moral in purpose and in actions. But combining a bunch of individuals into a coercive group can cause the group to become immoral. For example, Adolf Hitler’s rise to power was initially a pretty good thing for Germany. However, as he gained power, the good was replaced by the bad. This may not be inevitable, but it happens so often that we should be cautious in giving so much power to groups. As an interesting sidebar, Niebuhr is directly contradicting the liberal Dewey who applauded the notion that the community, or larger society, created the greater good.
The answer to this apparent contradiction is, of course the Gospel. Societies and groups change as individuals change. Niebuhr stressed the role of the Holy Spirit (what he calls the “religious imagination”). In a sense the group remained moral because the individuals in that society answer to a “higher power,” not to the coercion of the group or to the agenda of the group. Dietrich Bonheoffer, a German
World War II martyr, for example, was perhaps the most patriotic of Germans because he loved his God and his country enough to obey God and His Word above all persons. This was the only way, Bonheoffer understood, that his nation could be moral and right before the God he served. Unfortunately, he was a lone voice in
the wilderness!
We live today in a world that is full of the tyranny of the majority. The world tells us to relax, be happy and do what is right in our own eyes. We do things as a group we would never do as individuals. But judgment comes not to groups but to individuals!
The truth, then, is change—real change—is a “God” thing. Only God can really change persons. And as he changes persons, families, then he will change communities and nations. I believe this with all my heart and anxiously wait for God to change our individual hearts, then our nation, and then the world. For the time we have left, with all the effort we have, I wish to do exactly that: share the Gospel with one person at a time so that the world will change and God’s Kingdom will come on this Earth as it is in Heaven!
Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category
Moral Persons, Immoral Societies
Wednesday, April 26th, 2017MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH TO FAMILIES
Thursday, December 17th, 2009A. FAMILY MINISTRIES
Walter Brueggemann, in his book The Land, suggests that there is a pervasive “lostness” in American life. In fact this alienation from one another, threatens all aspects of American culture. The reestablishment of the two-parent home would go a long way to bring back stability into our culture.
In that sense, then, church programs must take into account the broken relationships, the loss of relationships, that an Ellen or Elizabeth are experiencing. For instance, in our church we have a Youth Club, intergenerational experience every Wednesday night. A sort of “family” night, everyone is invited. Everyone is part of a “family” at least once a week. The Church should never lower its standards. On the contrary the Church should unabashedly promote a Christian perspective of family–fidelity to Christian morality.
Likewise, the church must recognize that the actual number of Murphy Browns in America (single mothers by choice with incomes over $50,000 a year) is not even .1% of unwed mothers. The fact is, they need our financial support. They need free childcare provided or all events. And so forth.
But it is true, though, that nontraditional family numbers are growing. Single parents should not be discouraged. We all know inspiring stories of how single parent families have prospered.
Another group that needs our attention is blended families. Now that 46% of all American marriages involve at least one partner who has at least one partner who has been married before, we need to recognize that blended families need special programming and attention.
B. DON’T FORGET TO BE RELIGIOUS
Next, the church must be unequivocable in its ethical stand that the Word of God must not be compromised. While we celebrate pluralism, without being moralistic or harsh, we need to recognize that not all family forms are right nor equal for the task of raising children.
Churches must accept openly and without prejudice the full range of single families, stepfamilies, and cohabiting families (while making clear such a life style is sinful!).
The church should challenge its families and young people to have higher standards than the world.
Our youth programs should emphasize preparation for life in the egalitarian postmodern family. Since one of the major trends of family life in America is the absence of fathers, boys and young men should be spoken to seriously about commitment and parenting.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY (cont.)
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009Most historians–and social scientists–agree that a stable, two parent American family is the key to a revitalization of American society. Whether it is 1850 Cincinnati described by the historian Mary Ryan, or 1995 Los Angeles, a two parent family brings significant bonuses to American society. Its absence creates all sorts of problems.
In conclusion, these are no longer right wing, conservative Judeo-Christian organizations saying these things. According to a study by the National Commission on Children, the “Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being,” published by the liberal Center for the Study of Social Policy, children growing up in single-parent households are at greater risk than those in two-parent families for substance abuse, adolescent childbearing, criminality, suicide, mental illness and dropping out of school. It is clear too that the economic risks to children are greatest among unwed mothers. And clearly there is no compelling evidence that a decline in government spending alone accounts for the growing risks to children. In fact, let me make myself very clear: all my research points to an unavoidable conclusion: The most important indicator of childhood problems–from poor health to poverty to behavioral problems–is whether a child grows up in a two-parent or single parent household. No other indicator–race, economics, ethnicity, demographics–is as important as whether or not there is a father in the house. In that sense, the loss of fatherhood in our society has had a devastating effect. The single most important, and, in my opinion, trend in American families today is the increased absence of fathers and the feminization of kinship.
The problem is not simply missing fathers, but the cultural shift stripping fatherhood of its masculinity. In the movie Mrs. Doubtfire as an androgynous parent Robin Williams is badly needed by his children; as a father, he is irrelevant. Fathers are becoming an extinct species.
The collapse of the American Family (cont.)
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009Clearly single parenthood exacerbates poverty, but would marriage cure it? Yes. Research suggests that over 60% of poor children in mother-only families would be lifted out of poverty if they were in two parent households.
Would money help the problem? “Unless we slow down these social trends–out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs, the breakdown of values–government money is not going to do much,” says Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council. Bauer concludes by saying, “Kids are not in poverty because Washington is not spending more money.” “Programs like AFDC combined with food stamps and housing assistance, although meant for good, have broken up more families than slavery ever did. As a result of these broken families, children are being raised without fathers in the house. This single fact contributes more than anything to the chaotic atmosphere in our inner cities,” writes Rev. John Perkins, a pioneer of African American self-help programs, in Policy Review a publication of the Heritage Foundation.
In spite of billions of federal dollars being poured into social projects since the War on Poverty began in the middle sixties, there are more poor people today than any other time in American history. Even in the idealistic decade of 1960-170, when everyone thought the war on poverty would be won in a generation, in spite of the fact that the government provided unprecedented resources for children, the well-being of children declined.
Young persons who grow up in single parent households are much more likely to commit crime than any other population group. Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. Tracking studies indicate that five of six adolescents caught up in the criminal-justice system came from families in which a parent (usually the father) has been absent. In fact, in 1988 a government survey of 17,000 children found, according to one analyst, that “children living apart from a biological parent are 20 to 40% more vulnerable to sickness. As illegitimately increases, so does criminal activity. And most social scientists insist that there is a clear connection. In 1972, when about 10% of children were illegitimate, the federal and state prison population in the United States was 94.6 per 100,000 people. In 1982, the rate was 170 per 100,000. By 1992, when over 30% of American children were illegitimate, the prison rate had grown to 330 for every 100,000.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY
Monday, December 14th, 2009The social welfare system is a runaway juggernaut. We have spent over $5 trillion since 1965 and we are worse off. If all this money had given us happy, healthy families, it would have been worth it. But the opposite is true. It has consigned untold millions of children to lives of bitterness and failure.
In 1960 five of every 100 American births were illegitimate. By 1991 that figure was thirty of every 100, and the upward trend shows no sign of slowing. Government welfare programs dealing with the problem have also increased. But the cost of illegitimacy is not measured only in dollars, as New York’s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed: “A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder–most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure–that is not only to be expected, it is very near to inevitable.”
By 1994 the figure of illegitimate births grew to 40% and, an even more alarming figure, 27% of pregnancies are aborted. “Now, I don’t care what your position is, whether you’re pro-choice or anti- that’s too many,” President Clinton told the National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Having a baby out of wedlock is “simply not right,” he said. “You shouldn’t have a baby before you’re ready, and you shouldn’t have a baby when you’re not married.”
“Children who do not live with a mother and a father are more likely to be high school dropouts, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and more likely to be dependent on welfare than children who live with both biological parents,” Human Services Chief Louis Sullivan said in October, 1994. Psychologists point out that fathers are not simply substitute mothers. Fathers tend to be stronger disciplinarians than mothers and that’s particularly true for boys. Boys are much less likely to develop good self-control when fathers are not present. But, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moniyhan pointed out in 1965, a man, already suffering from his failure as a provider, is further demeaned by becoming dependent on the woman who gets the welfare check. As a result, many African American men have turned to violence to gain self-esteem. Roughly 40 percent of young black men ages 17 to 35 are in prison, on probation or on the dole. I blame human depravity and the social welfare system for this deplorable situation.
Of course the real victims are children. Single households statistically are usually poorer than two parent households.In 1993, 46.1% of the 8.8 million female-headed families with children lived in poverty, compared with only 9.0% of the 26.1 million married couple families with children. Of 1.6 million families headed by unmarried men only 22.5% lived in poverty. Out of 69.3 million children younger than 18 15.7 million–one in four–are poor. Most of these poor children are illegitimate and illegitimacy is approaching an 80% rate in some inner-cities. And it is not simply an innercity phenomenon. 23% of American children live in families below the poverty line and 31% of these in Suburbia.
Evoking the Spirit of Isaiah
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009The task ahead of us is to live and evoke the spirit of Isaiah in our community. As the theologian Walter Brueggemann, and others like him, argue, our task is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousÂness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. And increasingly that culture is become inimical to the Gospel. Either way, a community rooted in the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a curiosity and a threat in such a culture. No wonder Isaiah’s argument that one should rely on a faithful, historical God was such a threatening message to His generation. And to ours. Our world does not understand, much less believe in our history. God is not to be trusted because He cannot be quantified. He is not to be controlled. This God makes self-proclaimed kings of the earth uncomfortable. And this God of ours, therefore, has been making kings like Herod, Ahab, and Nero uncomfortable for ages. I remember a simple, powerful Gospel Song that all of us in our 1966 Southern church sang. This was the song of the redeemed. But we scarcely knew it. “Jesus loves the little children. . . red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight.” Since I was still too young to doubt the veracity of my parents and teachers, I actually believed that song. And, when I started living that song it changed my world. And when enough people live that message we will change our world. Our cause will become holy, our witness worthy of the Gospel. There will be opposition. But our song brings hope, life, and salvation. So it is worth it. Be bold and courageous, young people, and sing a new song. Do your best on the SAT to bring glory to Him. And become a light to this new generation!
4 MILLION AND GROWING!
Monday, November 30th, 2009Finally, what does it mean to the future of America to have 4 million of its best, brightest, and spirit filled students graduating from the most prestigious universities in the world? What will it mean to have four million new business persons, artists, authors, military officers, business leaders, and government leaders who are spirit-filled evangelical Christians? I can feel the ground shaking!!!!
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING
Friday, November 27th, 2009Practically speaking:
- Find a local church before you go to college. Go to the first service you can.
- Parents should meet the local pastor and introduce themselves.
- Participate in a local Christian group—Navigators, Inter-varsity, et al. But that does not substitute for a local church.
- Purpose to live a Godly life before you face temptation.
- Set up a study schedule that is a priority only behind your devotional life.
- Practice courtship.
- Expect persecution. The main persecution you will receive will be about your profession that Christ is the only way, the only truth, the only life.
- Summer school can be a spiritual and financial opportunity for you. You can participate in mission trips that may count for academic credit and may also help you grow spiritually. Also, summer school may be a cost-effective way to accelerate your college experience and thereby save money for you and your parents.
- Avoid all appearance of evil.
- Write from a Christian perspective but do not allow your confessional stand to be an excuse for shoddy work.
- You will probably not be able to choose your roommate before you first arrive. But you can choose your roommate for your sophomore year. Choose wisely.
- Pray for your unsaved friends.
- Know the Truth.
- Live the Truth.
- Work hard and be the best follower of Christ that you can be!