Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Christian Activism and the Legacy of the 1960s

The Controversial Stand of Pastor Greg Boyd Part 3

In my last essay, I argued that the effect of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 was to subsume traditional biblical thinking to the philosophies of the Modernist Movement. Although the trial dealt with a violation of the Tennessee Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in public schools, it was essentially a contest between the Traditionalists and the Modernists. The Modernist Movement was in full swing by the 1920’s. Although the court ruled against the defendant, it was not a victory for the Bible in American life because the ruling was based on a legal technicality, not for constitutional reasons.

I also see the Monkey Trial as the twentieth century’s first case of “separation of church and state.” The trial gave credence to the general move to replace fundamental biblical teachings for modernist thinking in the body politic. Traditional Christian teachings were relegated to the inside of church buildings, seen as having no appropriate place in education or public debate. As Joseph Loconte of the Heritage Foundation brilliantly phrased it: “We Americans jealously enforce the separation of church and state—but not the separation of faith from life.” I believe this separation of faith from life laid the groundwork for the upheaval of the counter cultural revolution of the 1960’s, the legacy of which America is still suffering today.

The decade of the ‘60’s is identified with revolution: political revolution, cultural revolution, sexual revolution. Here’s a short list of some of the revolutionary activities of the ‘60’s:

· assassination of John F. Kennedy
· assassination of Robert Kennedy
· assassination of Martin Luther King
· civil rights movement
· “President Johnson’s war”
· draft card burning
· “hell no we won’t go!”
· Woodstock
· hippies
Deep breath
· Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
· “bra burning”
· “don’t trust anybody under thirty”
· Black Power Movement
· Peyton Place
· Georgy Girl
· abortion
· Helen Gurley Brown’s Cosmo

Revolution is a word jam-packed with emotion. It can have a positive meaning or an evil one depending on which side of a revolution one is on. But looking back at the 1960’s, I am hard pressed to see any real value in the counter cultural revolution. It was nothing more than a thoughtless and wholesale rebellion against authority with self-indulgent hedonism.

God established government and authority for an orderly and peaceful society. “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” (I Peter 2:13-14) The Apostle Peter continues: “Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect for everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (I Peter 2:16-17) At the time Peter told his readers to submit to the civil authorities, the notoriously cruel Roman Emperor Nero was in charge.

I believe that the Bible not only commands Christians, but all members of a society, to cooperate with their rulers as far as conscience will allow. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary to right wrongs. For example, Martin Luther King used Ghandi-like peaceful resistance to fight the status quo of racial discrimination and start the nation on the road to correct the racial injustices of the past. That's the beauty of our democracy: it makes room for dissent within the instructions of the First Epistle of Peter. But violent defiance, murder, promiscuity in all its forms and hedonism are not forms of civil disobedience, but rebellion against God's established order and man's execution of it. If people don’t want a society built on a foundation of biblical principles, then on what basis do they determine right from wrong or how to decide which actions of conscience may rightly supersede the law? A just and civil society cannot practice freedom without boundaries in which to operate. Without boundaries, anything goes. Some call this pure freedom, but the downside of pure freedom is its consequences.

Here are some of the consequences of sexual "freedom" that its revolution wrought:

1. The divorce rate is much higher today than 40 years ago. In 2004, the number of divorces per 1000 married women was 17.7; in 1960 it was 9.2. (National Marriage Project, State of Our Unions, 2005). According to the Heritage Foundation, children of divorced parents have more health, behavioral, and emotional problems; are involved more frequently in crime and drug abuse; and have higher rates of suicide. They also are more likely to repeat a grade and to have higher drop-out rates and lower rates of college graduation.

2. Families with children that were not poor before the divorce see their income drop as much as 50 percent. Almost 50 percent of the parents with children that are going through a divorce move into poverty after the divorce.

3. According to a Heritage Foundation study, sexually active teens are far more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide than those that wait for marriage. This same study says that 8000 teenagers a day become infected with STDs. In the year 2000, some 240,000 babies were born to girls 18 years and younger. Most of these mothers were unmarried. They and their children are extremely likely to have long-term poverty and welfare dependence.

4. Sexually active teenagers are far more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide than those who waited until marriage.

5. Violent crime rate has quadrupled since 1960. Crime rates are also affected by demographic and cultural conditions. For example, the violent crime rate increases with the share of births to single mothers, according to a study by the Cato Institute.

6. Sevenfold increase in cohabitation since 1960 (cohabitation is an indicator of future divorce).

This is evangelism: to preach God's Word of salvation, to stop death in all its forms. I agree wholeheartedly with Pastor Boyd that Christians must be available to serve under the power of the kingdom of God to bring about long term healing for people who have reaped what they have sown. But I don't believe it is wise or scriptural to wait until the damage is done before Christians act.

Back in the sixties revolt was largely practiced by the populace against the prevailing authorities. Nowadays Hollywood, many media pundits, some elected officials and even some judges (like the ninth circuit) all seem to be actively working to institutionalize the sixties culture of rebellion, often against majority public opinion, in the name of civil rights and freedom. And Pastor Boyd says Christians are wrong, and idolators, for being involved in the public debate. I don’t know who is scarier.

This is LM
Thanks for stopping by

3 Comments:

At 2:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you some kind of a christo-fascist? Keeping Christianity out of politics is the best way to guarantee freedom of the religion.

 
At 8:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keeping the heritage this country was founded on will guarantee religious freedom. Without that foundation which establishes right from wrong, we are open to anybody's value system including getting rid of religion.

 
At 10:06 AM, Blogger Lisa said...

Thank you for your comments. I'm working on my grand conclusion and I hope you all will come back and take a look at it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home