The American Spectator : Plus Eight Is Enough

Text Size

Plus Eight Is Enough

By Daniel Allott on 8.17.09 @ 6:07AM

How Christian conservatives are losing the culture war.

It's a long and ignominious list. First there was Newt Gingrich. Then came Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Chip Pickering and Vito Fossella. Most recently there was John Ensign and Mark Sanford.

Politically, sex scandals are equal opportunity destroyers. For every David Vitter, there is an Eliot Spitzer. For every John Ensign there's a John Edwards. For every Bill Clinton there's…well, there's only one Slick Willie. But you get the point: sexual scandal knows no party.

Yet, a common denominator linking many political sex scandals of the last few years is the involvement of conservative Christian politicians, men who, it seemed, had made sexual responsibility and marital fidelity cornerstones of their public and private lives.

But these figures aren't alone. They reflect a broader reality among many conservative Christians struggling to live up to the moral standards they espouse.

Consider Jon and Kate Gosselin, stars of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, the immensely popular reality show that was once a favorite of evangelicals. Jon and Kate are evangelical Christians who raised their eight children on a combination of Christian discipline and wholesome family values.

But the couple has spent the last year deflecting accusations of infidelity and parental neglect. Jon and Kate separated in June, and the tabloids are documenting the octoparents' pitiful descent into debauchery. The public is left wondering who's looking after the couple's five-year-old sextuplets and twin girls.

Meanwhile Reverend Alberto Cutie, a Roman Catholic priest famous as a commentator on Spanish language television, recently left the church after tabloids revealed that he was having an affair.

The Cutie scandal came in the wake of thousands of substantiated allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Numerous evangelical pastors have also resigned after scandals involving allegations of sexual misconduct, from prostitution to statutory rape.

Not surprisingly, many of the faithful are falling short too. While practicing Christians and political conservatives rightly warn of the perils of same-sex unions, it is in their own hands that the institution of marriage has been in free fall.

In a 2008 study, The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians was 32 percent, statistically identical to the 33 percent figure among non-evangelical American adults.
Political conservatives end their marriages at a higher rate than the general population. The U.S. Census Bureau has found that the highest divorce rates are in the Bible belt. And in 2007, "The State of Our Unions" report by the National Marriage Project (NMP) at Rutgers University concluded that red-staters "are likely to be more religiously observant and to belong to denominations that profess allegiance to more conservative social values" but also are more likely to divorce than those from blue states.

In a related problem, NMP found that red states tend to have higher out-of-wedlock birth rates than the blue states. For instance, While 37% of all births in the U.S. were out-of-wedlock in 2005, the unwed birth percentages for the red states of Mississippi (49%) and Louisiana (48%) were far ahead of those in the blue states of New Hampshire (27%) and Minnesota (30%).

And new research suggests that religious Americans might be just as likely as secular Americans to abort their unborn children. A June study in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, a quarterly journal of the American Sociological Association, found that female students at private, religious high schools and colleges are more likely than their secular school counterparts to have abortions.

Some commentators may be tempted to interpret these data as proof that Christians no longer care about maintaining high standards of moral conduct. But poll after poll shows that the protection and promotion of marriage and unborn life remain top concerns for Christians, both in their politics and in their personal lives.
These studies and anecdotes prove only that Christians are subject to the same temptations and moral weakness inherent in us all. The sad stories of Governor Sanford and Jon and Kate reveal how challenging it has become for the faithful to insulate themselves from a society coarsened by tabloid values. These data affirm the difficulty in following Jesus' admonition to be in the world but not of it.

Religious conservatives have become a consequential force over the last few years by engaging in politics to defend the values of sexual restraint, marital fidelity and respect for human life. That's a good thing. But to win the culture war, their passion to defend these values in public policy must be matched by an equal amount of passion to live them in their own lives.

topics:
Evangelicals, Culture War

About the Author

Daniel Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute, and Co-Executive Producer of the forthcoming documentary film Flashes of Color: Disability in the Age of Perfection.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment

Kitty| 8.17.09 @ 7:12AM

I grew up in the Episcopal, back when priests and ministers never wavered in their sermons of good and evil -- i.e., the Ten Commandments -- and what the consequences were if we wavered.

Nowadays, it's like nothing is really bad as long as you say you're sorry. When was the last time you heard "Thou shalt not" in church?
...

JP| 8.17.09 @ 7:28AM

To underscore Daniel Allot's thesis, one could take a closer look at Roman Catholics these past 35-40 years. As most Catholics know, the big break from religious orthodoxy came with the now infamous encyliclical Hamanae Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI in 1969. The Vatican II Council was 4 years history and the Church was a mixture of both great expectations and great confusion. But at the center of this confusion (political, theological, social, and spiritual) was a growing moral confusion concerning sexuality. Lurking beneath the exterior calm of the late 50s and 60s were the contentious issues concerning priestly celebacy and artificial contraception. The Protestant World dealt with the first during the Reformation, and the second duirng the 1930 Anlgican Conference at Lambreth. During the 1960s, many seminarians were recruited with the understanding that after VII, celebacy requirements were be relaxed. Already there was a movement to recruit homosexual semenarians (by homosexual priests ordained in the late 40s and 50s), and the world would see the fruit of these efforts by the late 90s with the Priest Scandals.

For the layman there was also the expectations that the Church would relax the use of artificial contraception. Pope Paul's encyclical dashed these hopes, and the reaction from the Catholic intellectuals was fast and furious. Pope Paul most explicitly gave his reasons why couples cannot use contraception, and even for many Protestants they were quite reasonable, if not prophetic. The dividing of the procreative and the unitive aspects of the Marriage Act he warned, would make sex no different than mutual masterbation. Women would become sex objects and thier dignity as well as thier safety would suffer. Children would be seen as nothing more than an adornment of a couple's marriage and not as gift's from God. But just as importantly, the invitation into the mysteries of God's creative powers would be lost and marriages would evolve into nothing more than a materialistic contract. In short, the Pope warned that divorces would rise, rape and sexual crimes would increase, as would child abuse. Pope John Paul II would take Humanae Vitae even farther. During the 1980s he gave a series of unofficial lectures on human sexuality.

Today Catholics take artificial contraception at the same levels as non-Catholics (this, despite the fact that the Church calls the taking of artificial contraception a Grave Sin); Catholics also procure abortions about at the same level as non-Catholics. Ditto for Divorce.

The Culture Wars have been going on much longer than we realize. We could probably go back as far as the 1920s or before. The decay of the Christian Worldview is at its most critical concerning the 2000 year old idea of the family. We are witnessing a steady evolution into what the late thinker Alan Bloom called civilized barbarisim. For over 180 years we've been living off the inherited cultural fat of the past and we've obviously exhausted our legacy. It would take an unbelievable religious revival (one even greater than the Great Awakening for Protestants or the Counter Reformation for Catholics) to re-energize the spiritual lives of Christians and inject a renewal of Christian spirit into the world. If we fail, one only needs to look down the street at the local mosques. Islam is the only religious organization that offers a counter balance to the growing paganism of today's culture.

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 8:18AM

Under the sub title of "How Christian conservatives are losing the culture war." The author implies that Alberto Cutie is a conservative? I don't remember reading that anywhere, in fact most of my friends and in-laws that are Catholic while they share some common conservative beliefs, most of them regularly vote a Democrat ticket. As far as the red state, blue state comparison is concerned, I would like to see a complete breakdown. From what is cited it is obvious that the problem could be partially attributed to culture issues in those two red states. Louisiana and Mississippi are 100% different than New Hampshire and Minnesota. Could the author have found a more stark comparison? Good grief.

Lastly the author states: "But to win the culture war, their passion to defend these values in public policy must be matched by an equal amount of passion to live them in their own lives"
The fact is that for Conservative Christians, living the good life is all that matters. We are not on a crusade, we are not trying to take over the world, don't try and fix us too.

Ryan| 8.17.09 @ 9:15AM

Part of the problem also lies in the unwillingness - and inability - of churches to discipline their own. The church has lost its ability to deal with the internal issues, and does not teach its members to listen to proper rebuke. There should be no such thing as "irreconcilable differences" for a marriage, not between two Christians.

The sacredness of marriage has also been devalued, particularly by a world that simply sees it as an extension of sleeping together rather than a commitment and a responsibility.

Go read a book call the Peacemaker by Ken Sande, which maps out the Biblical process for making peace both within and without a Christian context.

Gary | 8.17.09 @ 9:21AM

With an appreciative nod towards the execellent comments of JP, Kitty, Aaron and of course the , author himself, may I suggest that the gap between what Christians say they value and will do and what actually happens is the result of a life based on works compared to what Christian life should be , i.e. a life walking in the Spirit. This is the so-called "grace-focused" life. The breakdowns in marriages and self-control occur most readily when one sees their daily walk as a matter of supreme self-effort at deserving God's grace. When we live according to God's design for us; modeling Christ's sacrifice for us in other-centered love towards one another, then we can possibly hope to stem the tide somewhat. But please note, no progress is made unless the Spirit of God wills it so!

BCosby| 8.17.09 @ 9:26AM

"In a related problem, NMP found that red states tend to have higher out-of-wedlock birth rates than the blue states. For instance, While 37% of all births in the U.S. were out-of-wedlock in 2005, the unwed birth percentages for the red states of Mississippi (49%) and Louisiana (48%) were far ahead of those in the blue states of New Hampshire (27%) and Minnesota (30%). "

I expect if this figure were broken down by race (and actually, all of the figures for the Bible Belt) one would find that the percentages are skewerd by race. I bet the ratio for Southern whites mirrors those of New Hampshire and Vermont.

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 9:46AM

BCrosby, I'm not willing to jump on the black and white band wagon. I would be curious however to see a more complete breakdown as you suggest. The subject that the black community promotes out-of-wedlock births somehow, (or fails to prevent it) and whites don't doesn't fly with me. There have seemingly been just as many articles and examples highlighting this issues amongst both races and Hispanics as well, which is particularlly surprising given their historically strong sense of community and family.

Eric Damon| 8.17.09 @ 9:51AM

What many people seem to gloss over is the fact that Christians do not claim perfection, yet it is seemingly thrust upon them all the time. You can be a Christian and still have an affair; you can be a Christian and still have moral lapses; you can be a Christian and still have a marriage end in divorce. People act as though being a Christian means that you never make mistakes or have missteps along the way, and when that happens it means that you are not what you said you are.

There is a saying that "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" that people do not seem to want to believe. But it is true, and has to be acknowledged as such. But if this is going to touch on the political, let me say this: could the failures of so many Christians in political life be because they are so busy trying to fight "the culture wars" that they take their eyes off of their own personal walk? Fight ing the "culture wars" are great and everything, but at what cost is it done? The personal walk with the Christian is supposed to be paramount, but it seems that a lot of us get sidetracked and put political considerations above spiritual ones. That may have as big an impact on the situations described in the article as anything.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 9:51AM

Christians are merely sinners saved by Grace.

We aspire to love one another, and remember JesusChrist as our mentor and Savior.

Sometimes we fail.

The difference is that we TRY, and sometimes fail. we try to make amends when we fail. We try to do the least possible harm when we fail.

We pray for forgiveness...to the exact same degree we forgive others. (see the Lord's Prayer).

The people with no faith commitment certainly are eager ..."...to throw the first stone" aren't they?

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 9:57AM

Something I have found humorous, a British comedian said: The liberals are so angry at Christians because their carbon footprint is double what with Jesus traipsing along with them every where they go.

Appleby| 8.17.09 @ 10:21AM

When we girls growing up used to whine, "Everybody else does!" invariably Mama would reply, "YOU are not everybody else."

And ditto if we said "Everybody else's Mother lets her ..." The reply: "I am not everybody else's mother. I am YOUR mother. AND.I.SAID.NO."

The fact is that all the laws in the world do no good if they aren't enforced. The Church has got slack in its enforcement and you see the results.

In my Catholic opinion it is time to clean house. Better a smaller congregation that is Not Everybody Else than a big building full of people who think somehow the Pope lets them vote on morality. His Holiness no more wants to know what Everybody Else Does than Mama ever did. He is the boss of us. And.He.Said.No.

JP| 8.17.09 @ 10:28AM

"When we live according to God's design for us; modeling Christ's sacrifice for us in other-centered love towards one another, then we can possibly hope to stem the tide somewhat. But please note, no progress is made unless the Spirit of God wills it so! "

Gary, I couldn't have said it better. Your comments reminded of me 2 biographies. The first concerned John Rockefeller, and the second Pope Pious X.

Rockefeller grew up in the aftermath of the great Baptist Revival (A Revival that had huge implications on American History). His mother was a humble pious wife of several children living on the frontiers of Ohio and Pennsylvania. His father was a drunk philanderer who disappeared for months on end seducing young women and "borrowing money" from unsuspecting farmers and merchants. It is difficult to imagine the humiliation that Rockefeller's mother endured, not to mention the financial and emotional hardships of running her farm and raising her children without a husband. Her husband litterally was run out of about every frontier town between Pittsburgh and Fort Watne Indiana. But when he returned, she always took him back. It wasn't from niave sentiment that drove her, but her Christian duty. Eventually, her husband went too far (marrying another woman without her knowledge), but she always considered herself married to him.

Pope Pius X grew up in a destitute home in Southern Italy. His mother, a widow, used every spare nickel to make sure he could attend the local school (in those days all schools in Italy were private). He would walk barefoot to school every day, and most nights he and his mother would go to bed hungry. She knew that Christ wanted him to be a priest (as did he), and thier sufferings were just a part of Christ's plan. Later, when she was elderly and frail, and he was a newly ordained Bishop, his mother reminded him _ "Don't ever forget that before you could wear this (she pointed to his new Bishop's ring), I had to weat this" (she showed him her wedding ring).

It wasn't that both of these women took thier responsibilities seriously, but some other "spirit" animated thier lives. It was this Christian Spirit (or as the German's called it Hellige Geist) that animated Christian families for almost 2000 years. Yes, many did fail (But Christ came primairily for us Sinners), and all of the early Apostles were mainly the "lowest of the low". I do agree with Eric that we should humble ourselves and attend with those things most important - namely our families. I am not saying we should isolate ourselves, but we should be wary of joining these external things at the cost of our souls and our families. Just look at our current cultueral warriors as a warning.

Helpless Hetero| 8.17.09 @ 10:34AM

Let’s face the truth…it’s all women’s fault for being so damn alluring to us poor males. If you dames spent more time trying to look like Helen Thomas instead of Helen of Troy, we wouldn’t have this problem…though Rick Pitino may be an exception, but you can never discount the effect of alcohol and a dimly lit room. So ladies, when dealing with guys, more callous and less callipygian is the ticket.

Doctor Right| 8.17.09 @ 10:48AM

Christians can NEVER live up to the moral standard they espouse...NO ONE can...But that doesn't mean we abandon the standard. Thyat would be patently absurd.

God knew that, on our own, we would ALL fall short of his expectations...So he sent his son to intercede on our behalf...Christ died for our sins and imperfections so we can be forgiven if we areb truly repentant.

To say that Christian Conservatives are "losing the culture wars" because some Christians go terribly astray is like saying airplane travel is ineffective because some airplanes crash.

What's the alternative? To abandon the Judeo-Christian concepts that formed the bedrock of Western Civilzation and embrace an arbitrary, man-made system of rules and regualtions?

That's been done...And it always fails. Ask the citiziens of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia if you don't believe it.

In short...The fact that people who identify as Christians occasionally fall away from God is not exactly a newsflash.

And to elevate Islam as a counterweight to paganism is just plain stupid.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:42AM

Doctor Right...................Well spoken!

You get a uniform number on the T.E.A.M.
Best regards

Ken (Old Texican| 8.17.09 @ 11:44AM

Helpless Hetero

.....yep, that was Adam's pitiful excuse as well.

Seek| 8.17.09 @ 11:49AM

The problem with Orthodoxy is that it's never been tried, even back during a supposedly older and better era. If you really want extreme true stories of debauchery, read the late William Manchester's book, "A World Lit Only By Fire." Today's "immoralists" have nothing on the Popes of the late Middle Ages.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 11:57AM

difference is we conservatives know sex is a necessary evil. we know if every husband cheated on his wife such would be the end of the nuclear family.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:01PM

by necessary evil I mean men need an outlet for their animal urges (including aggression) but they don't have to think it is a good thing.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:04PM

So we do damage control.

How? if I knew I'd be writing pieces here, not commenting.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:23PM

one more comment on the subject because not only is eight enough, but four is enough as well.

today you have to say 'i'm no prude'; but you have to keep a lid on it. for instance, if gays want to marry, my residual liberal guilt says let them marry. But do they have to flaunt it? if gay dare speaketh its name, then please not so mucheth.
do they need all those gay TV shows? it is exhibitionism: look at me, I'm gay; look at me I'm a pederast; look at me, I'm into leather.
Tom Wolfe described what Beatles' fans did at concerts forty fve years ago, they were in reality screaming "me, me, look at ME!"

Can't there be a voluntary separation on the part of Hollywood to institute Separation of Gay and TV in the interests of counterbalancing narcissistic exhibitionism?

Liberal Reader| 8.17.09 @ 1:35PM

This is a fine piece.

Not only do red states have higher divorce rates and higher out of wedlock birth rates, they also have higher rates of domestic violence and even pornography consumption.

And while we in blue states may take grim and not very noble satisfaction in these numbers (after all, we who do not live in "Real America" have our problems too), they should NOT be viewed as an indictment of social conservatism.

It seems to me logical that people in red states should be all the more motivated to maintain control of their lives and their families and communities by recourse to "traditional values" when confronting the destructive forces unleashed by divorce, illegitimate births, and so on.

However, perhaps these numbers could encourage those on the right to tone down what seems like smug self-righteousness when they point their fingers at us coasters and accuse us of leading less than moral lives.

Blue states make up 9 of the 10 "donor states," that is, 9 of the 10 states who pay more to the federal government than they receive back in federal dollars. Blue states fund enormously expensive federal programs that help people in white rural America. Blue states are -- indeed -- part of "Real America," and the Democratic party -- rumored on the right to be a party of "fascists" and Nazis -- is as true and loyal to this country as the Republican.

Sam Hendrickson| 8.17.09 @ 1:45PM

To those who join the author in his sympathies regarding the Christian church's cultural (with political emphasis) mandate, let me encourage you to see Phil Johnson's articles (his audience is evangelical Christian) on this issue, beginning here http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/foolishness-of-preaching.html

Francis Beckwith| 8.17.09 @ 1:55PM

In a word: it's the culture, stupid. The reason why morality cannot be "personal," is that it, like the environment, effects all living things in it.

This is not to excuse immoral conduct. But it is easier to do good when there exist impediments and incentives that protect and sustain the moral life. Law and culture cannot make one moral. But they sure help.

If you watch the show, "To Catch a Predator," it will soon occur to you that many of these men who are caught would have not even considered this course of action if not for the internet and the porn culture that it nurtures.

If one, for example, discovered that Billy Ray Cyrus was having his daughter dress and dance for him at his home in the way she does on TV, we would brand him a "sicko." But why is it okay for Mr. Cyrus to permit his daughter to do such things on national television where other fathers can watch his daughter perform for them in the privacy of their own living room?

The moral universe, like the natural universe, has its own ecology. You can't antiseptically isolate its pollution.

BD57| 8.17.09 @ 2:12PM

Gary:

Wonderful comments that are spot-on.

JP| 8.17.09 @ 2:38PM

"Blue states make up 9 of the 10 "donor states," that is, 9 of the 10 states who pay more to the federal government than they receive back in federal dollars. Blue states fund enormously expensive federal programs that help people in white rural America."

LR,
The 2 states that absorb the lion's share of our federal tax dollars are New York and California. Illinois and New Jersey, as well as Michigan are not far behind. To say that they are donor states is rather disingenuous, as they receive hundreds of billions,bordering on nearly a trillion dollars in federal lagress.

Also, I might add that the most liberal voting districts in the nation have the oldest citizens. San Francisco, San Jose, Bel Air, Seatle, Vermont, Boston, Chicago, Madison, Nantucket, the Hamptons, and Westchester have higher than average median age; they also have the least amount of children. What this tells me is that greying babyboomers predominate in these areas. And despite thier libidinous reputation as a group they have moved on past the satisfaction of carnal desires (as most eldery do). While liberals may laugh and pat themselves on the back when reading about Govenor Sanford or Sen Ensin, thier sins may lie elsewhere (avarice? covetness?). If I remember, some of the more liberal members of Obama's Cabinet had tax issues recently.

My response isn't meant a tit for tat, but we could go around and round all day trying to one up eachother.

PolishKnight| 8.17.09 @ 2:54PM

I chuckled at the author's assertion that Jon and Kate was a favorite evangelical program. It made my wife and I cringe, like America's Funniest Home Videos. Kate treated her husband Jon like a doormat. Would this behavior have been acceptable if Jon has "sucked it up" and "took it like a man?"

I went to evangelical churches and found the women there to act in a similar fashion: Many thought that giving birth made them the Virgin Mary and they used their children like weapons. Some of them even said that they felt it was acceptable to slap around their husbands because chivalry said they could do so without fear of retaliation!

In the meantime, as this shameful behavior goes on in their flocks, the ministers' main concerns were gay marriage and abortion. While the latter is an especially important theological issue, I went to hundreds of sermons and never heard anything about everyday, real issues that impact their parishoners.

Liberal Reader| 8.17.09 @ 3:05PM

JP --

First, New York IS one of the donor states: that is, New York contributes to the federal pot more than it takes out.

Anyway, my point was simply the notion that blue states sit around absorbing welfare while red states do the work is simply not true, just like the notion that conservatives are upright moral citizens while liberals are seething caldrons of vice is not true.

I don't want to go tit for tat with anyone.

But I will say that I'm sick of having a self-righteous finger of moral indignation pointed at me by people who have plenty of shortcomings of their own.

I'm not asking anyone to relax their moral values, and I'm not asking anyone to stop being conservative. Hell, I like Governor Sanford. What he did was wrong, but he seems like a good man to me. At least he wasn't chasing interns around.

But yes, I'm also reluctant to accept the ready distinctions between "Real America" and the evil blue, coastal states. I think it's bullshit. The numbers in this article -- and quite a few other studies -- agree.

PolishKnight| 8.17.09 @ 3:20PM

Liberal Reader, I'm chuckling at your sanctimonious criticism of conservatives wagging fingers at you while they sin because that's a perfect description of the average leftist that wants to keep their gas guzzling cars, while demanding the government's take others away. Or tell people they have to go on CommieCare, while they keep their union benefits, or using electricity to power their TV's and computers while demanding all power plants be shut down. I suppose it's less an example of hypocrisy rather than insanity.

Every leftist should move to the inner cities, give up their car, and reduce their carbon footprint before asking others to do the same before asking others to live by their PC religion.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:31PM

Have to qualify it today by saying: "I'm no Prude, but... as long as an old goat doesn't seduce MY teenagers."
Nothing more to add on the subject of the culture sexwars.
Red states, Liberal Reader, were CORRUPTED by the whatever-feels-good Woodstock ethos being marketed this week. The Wookstockers don't give it away anymore-- they are well off, rolling not in the mud at Yasgurs Farm, but in the dough on Main street.
here is a list for anyone who cares:
IMO American conservative greats-
1. Coolidge
2. Mencken
three: Reagan
four: Goldwater
five: Ike
six: Geo Will
seven: WFB
eight: Brookhiser

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:37PM

no point in arguing with opponents anymore, game over.
just say, "my attorney went to a more expensive Law School than your attorney."

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:52PM

the reason I'm so antsy about this is, in '89 when the Cold War ended, if anyone had said we'd be like this in '09, I'd have said 'forget it'.

there IS no morality (except for chumps) anywhere in America, only situational ethics. We aren't losing the culture wars, we have already lost the battles, and now we're fighting skirmishes around the Appomatox Courthouse. 'Do as thou wilt' is dethroning God and placing him in the dumpster next to the ultrathin condoms, roachclips, skinrags, beer cans...

GL| 8.17.09 @ 4:41PM

This article demonstrates more confusion between being a "conservative" Christian and being an "orthodox" Christians. Many "conservative" Christians, like Jon and Kate, have used IVF; orthodox Christians do not. Most conservative Christians use contraception; orthodox Christians do not. That is to say, what today passes as conservatism among most Christians was radical liberalism a century ago. Abandoning the full teaching of our faith in matters of sexuality and marriage has produced profoundly negative consequences for everyone in our society, including self-styled "conservative" Christians.

Brian| 8.17.09 @ 6:06PM

Not that there is not a problem among christians, the statistics are skewed. How? Non-christians "shack-up" with several partners before getting married. If those common law marriages were counted there would be a big difference in the stats.

Christopher Dart| 8.17.09 @ 6:21PM

Thank you, Mr. Allott, for this thoughtful and balanced corrective for the church of Jesus Christ in America. It is a sad, but accurate, summary of how too many of us who call ourselves Christian have separated our ideals from our actual, lived-out values. Social scientists have documented how groups often become more vocal and "enthusiastic" about their unique positions and practices when they are experiencing a downfall, to reactively strengthen what makes them unique. Unfortunately, too many American Christians have done so with the issues of abortion, sexual behavior, and the defense of traditional marriage. I understand and identify with the frustrations felt with the eroding of these values on a larger social scale (and in so many Christians’ practice as these sobering statistics reveal), but in the midst of shifting social currents, we must be careful to not lose our heads and switch to some type of ideological reactionary state where we battle loudly over "protecting" the family through legislation while we ignore our own; complain about schools giving out condoms while our sons and daughters, whom we've lost meaningful relationships with and respect from due to our overly “busy” lives, are having unprotected sex; tell people to keep their babies when we do little to help out the ones that do once the children are born--we place almost all of the responsibility on the mother, with little required of deadbeat dads, there are sagging job opportunities, and social mindsets in many areas have the #1 goal for young people as: get a no-brain job, get pregnant, and have kids--no vision, no joy, no creativity, no entrepreneurship, no bettering your community or even taking care of your physical health (look at the absurd obesity rates in the U.S.), and we frequently overspiritualize relational and even mental issues that concurrently need to be dealt with on a "natural" level (via counseling, support, recovery groups, etc.), to the detriment of our families, marriages, and other relationships.
Aaron here wrote a telling comment: “The fact is that for Conservative Christians, living the good life is all that matters. We are not on a crusade, we are not trying to take over the world, don't try and fix us too.” From my understanding of Scripture, that is part of the problem. Our focus as Christians isn’t to be on “living the good life,” in some type of “us four and no more” way. God’s heart is poured outward unto us; as disciples, ours is to mimic His--poured out unto Him, but also to our “neighbor.” When Christians prioritize their own benefit and become insular, they abandon the Great Commission, which is to spread the “good news” of Christ and His Kingdom to all the nations, teaching them to follow Him as well. No, we are not trying to take over the world (although there are Christians who incorrectly adopt that mindset, too), but we are to tangibly influence it for the Kingdom, here and abroad, with authentic, generous, life-giving lives. According to Jesus’ great paradox of “he who loses his life for My sake will find it,” that is where “the good life” is found, and my personal experience verifies that. Small-minded, fearful, appearance-oriented, and insular “Christianity” has got to go; people need a vision that extends beyond themselves, one that they actually begin to live out in the power of the transforming Holy Spirit.
Too many factions of the church in America have become too afraid to get "messy" so that the real issues (and yes, accountability) become taboo and aren't dealt with—well, until someone crosses the line and gets sent to the religious firing squad. Churches with truly healthy congregations are usually places where people feel loved enough AND where the people are "real" enough to be honest about their own "stuff" that actual healing/discipleship can take place. Otherwise, we too quickly become self-righteous ideologues who raise the standard higher than we ourselves ever intend to reach, and feel some sort of almost ethnic privilege because of our "correct" doctrine, and not our correct, stumbling-towards-Christ actions. The lived-out Gospel is what transforms people, communities, and nations for God's kingdom. But until the Church (Protestant, Catholic, etc.) gets real and gains discernment into the social situations and cultures that they live in, we will often stop short our analysis of these important issues at the "church level," ignorant of our own blind spots and familial/cultural issues that contribute to these problems. God doesn't live in a box, let's stop trying to put Him in one, and de-segregate Him from the rest of our lives, working together with our brothers and sisters in Christ across denominational, ethnic, and class lines toward real solutions.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 6:26PM

no, GL, it's worse than that: Christian men are men, they are going to continue to look at porn because such is a substitute for the real deal.
Only gay men don't want to look at, well you know, we don't have to spell things out all the time.
Whether Christian men are cons or orthos doesn't make all that much difference. The important thing is to understand that the libertines are the same as Christians, excpt that they think it is acceptable to 'do as thou wilt'.
Christians try not to give into their temptations.

IMO, ortho v. Cons is sophistry.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 6:58PM

HOWEVER, having written all the negative comments above, there is a partial solution for Christians-- what Bill Kristol recommended several years back: Christians can withdraw into intentional communities, or go the Little House on the Prairie route. Kristol didn't use my terminology. But to escape (as Thomas More said, "our [role] lies in escaping") depravity, a Christian family would have to escape inward or outward, there is no upward. You cannot have heaven on earth or in any secular community in any way whatsoever. No matter how we might con ourselves into thinking 'we can have it all', we can't have it all. Live in a carnal community and the temptations will suck you or your kin into their orbit.
If you go outward, into the sticks, then you might live without a computer, and hence no skinpix. No TV would mean no Hollywood gunk clogging up the minds of the family.
But you can still have a DVD player and music and all that. But you have to choose. Start thinking about it now.
Or put it off until Kingdom Come.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 7:08PM

So its not just my dictums, here is Lawrence Kohlberg's take, he is a moral philosopher and student of child development. He is director of Harvard's Center for Moral Education. His special area of interest is the moral development of children - how they develop a sense of right, wrong, and justice. Kohlberg observed that growing children advance through definite stages of moral development in a manner similar to their progression through Piaget's well-known stages of cognitive development. His observations and testing of children and adults, led him to theorize that human beings progress consecutively from one stage to the next in an invariant sequence, not skipping any stage or going back to any previous stage. These are stages of thought processing, implying qualitatively different modes of thinking and of problem solving at each stage.

These conclusions have been verified in cross-cultural studies done in Turkey, Taiwan, Yucatan, Honduras, India, United States, Canada, Britain, and Israel.

An outline of these developmental stages follows:

Kohlberg's concept of consecutive stages of moral development is rich with theological implications. An application of his theory to the story of God's dealing with ancient Israel, offers a rational explanation of actions on God's part which may seem harsh or unduly severe from our perspective.

An application of Kohlberg's stage theory is especially relevant to current discussions of the gospel, the atonement, the Law, and the true character of God.

KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
A. PREMORAL OR PRECONVENTIONAL STAGES: Behavior motivated by anticipation of pleasure or pain.

STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE:
Avoidance of physical punishment and deference to power. Punishment is an automatic response of physical retaliation. The immediate physical consequences of an action determine its goodness or badness. The atrocities carried out by soldiers during the holocaust who were simply "carrying out orders" under threat of punishment, illustrate that adults as well as children may function at stage one level.

STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE:
Marketplace exchange of favors or blows. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Justice is: "Do unto others as they do unto you." Individual does what is necessary, makes concessions only as necessary to satisfy his own needs. Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs. Vengeance is considered a moral duty. People are valued in terms of their utility.

B. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY: Acceptance of the rules and standards of one's group.

STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY:
Right is conformity to the behavioral expectations of one's society or peers. Individual acts to gain approval of others. Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others within the group. "Everybody is doing it." One earns approval by being conventionally "respectable" and "nice." Sin is a breach of the expectations of the social order. Retribution, however, at this stage is collective. Individual vengeance is not allowed. Forgiveness is preferable to revenge. Punishment is mainly for deterrence. Failure to punish is "unfair." "If he can get away with it, why can't I?"

STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER:
Respect for rules, laws and properly constituted authority. Defense of the given social and institutional order for it's own sake. Responsibility toward the welfare of others in the society. "Justice" normally refers to criminal or forensic justice. Justice demands that the wrongdoer be punished, that he "pay his debt to society," and that law abiders be rewarded. "A good day's pay for a good day's work." Injustice is failing to reward work or punish demerit. Right behavior consists of maintaining the social order for its own sake. Authority figures are seldom questioned. "He must be right. He's the Pope (or the President, or the Judge, or God)." Consistency and precedent must be maintained.

STAGE 4 ½:
Between the conventional stages and the post-conventional Levels 5 and 6, there is a transitional stage. College-age students that have come to see conventional morality as relative and arbitrary, but have not yet discovered universal ethical principles, may drop into a hedonistic ethic of "do your own thing." This was well noted in the hippie culture of the l960's. Disrespect for conventional morality was especially infuriating to the Stage 4 mentality, and indeed was calculated to be so.

C. POSTCONVENTIONAL OR PRINCIPLED MORALITY: Ethical principles

STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT:
Moral action in a specific situation is not defined by reference to a checklist of rules, but from logical application of universal, abstract, moral principles. Individuals have natural or inalienable rights and liberties that are prior to society and must be protected by society. Retributive justice repudiated. Justice distributed proportionate to circumstances and need. "Situation ethics." The statement, "Justice demands punishment," which is a self-evident truism to the Stage 4 mind, is just as self-evidently nonsense at Stage 5. Retributive punishment is neither rational nor just, because it does not promote the rights and welfare of the individual. Only legal sanctions that fulfill that purpose are imposed-- protection of future victims, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Individual acts out of mutual obligation and a sense of public good. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights, and in terms of standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society--e.g. the Constitution. The freedom of the individual should be limited by society only when it infringes upon someone else's freedom.

STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES:
An individual who reaches this stage acts out of universal principles based upon the equality and worth of all human beings. Persons are never means to an end, but are ends in themselves. Having rights means more than individual liberties. It means that every individual is due consideration of his interests in every situation, those interests being of equal importance with ones own. This is the "Golden Rule" model. A list of rules inscribed in stone is no longer necessary.

At this level, God is understood to say what is right because it is right; His sayings are not right, just because it is God who said them. Persons at this level have accepted God's invitation to "come and let us reason together".

THE FOLLOWING ARE OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY KOHLBERG

FURTHER EXPLAINING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES.

1. STAGE DEVELOPMENT IS INVARIANT.
One must progress through the stages in order, and one cannot get to a higher stage without passing through the stage immediately preceding it. A belief that such a leap into moral maturity is possible is in sharp contrast to the facts of developmental research. Moral development is growth, and like all growth, takes place according to a pre-determined sequence. To expect someone to grow into high moral maturity overnight would be like expecting someone to walk before he crawls.

2. IN STAGE DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECTS CANNOT COMPREHEND MORAL REASONING AT A STAGE MORE THAN ONE STAGE BEYOND THEIR OWN.
If Johnny is oriented to see good almost exclusively as that which brings him satisfaction, how will he understand a concept of good in which the "good" may bring him no tangible pleasure at all. The moral maxim "It is better to give than to receive" reflects a high level of development. The child who honestly asks you why it is better to give than to receive, does so because he does not and cannot understand such thinking. To him, "better" means better for him. And how can it be better for him to give, than to get.

3. IN STAGE DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUALS ARE COGNITIVELY ATTRACTED TO REASONING ONE LEVEL ABOVE THEIR OWN PRESENT PREDOMINANT LEVEL.
The person has questions and problems the solutions for which are less satisfying at his present level. Since reasoning at one stage higher is intelligible and since it makes more sense and resolves more difficulties, it is more attractive.

For example, two brothers both want the last piece of pie. The bigger, stronger brother will probably get it. The little brother suggests they share it. He is thinking at level two, rather than at level one. The solution for him is more attractive: getting some rather than none. An adult who functions at level one consistently will end up in prison or dead.

4. IN STAGE DEVELOPMENT, MOVEMENT THROUGH THE STAGES IS EFFECTED WHEN COGNITIVE DISEQUILIBRIUM IS CREATED, THAT IS, WHEN A PERSON'S COGNITIVE OUTLOOK IS NOT ADEQUATE TO COPE WITH A GIVEN MORAL DILEMMA.
The person who is growing, will look for more and more adequate ways of solving problems. If he has no problems, no dilemmas, he is not likely to look for solutions. He will not grow morally. In the apple pie example. The big brother, who can just take the pie and get away with it, is less likely to look for a better solution than the younger brother who will get none and probably a beating in the struggle.

5. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN BEING TO BE PHYSICALLY MATURE BUT NOT MORALLY MATURE.
If a child is spoiled, never having to accommodate for others needs, if he is raised in an environment where level two thinking by others gets the job done, he may never generate enough questions to propel him to a higher level of moral reasoning.

6. KOHLBERG BELIEVED THAT ONLY ABOUT 25% OF PERSONS EVER GROW TO LEVEL SIX, THE MAJORITY REMAINING AT LEVEL FOUR.
The Bible enjoins principles of modesty, humility, and wise stewardship of the money. Application of these principles might preclude the purchase of expensive jewelry, furs, flashy cars, or other items primarily for show. A person functioning at level six would have no problem applying these principles. Persons functioning at a level four on the other hand, might make rules about "jewelry" (in a church for instance) or red dresses, or cosmetics. But they might not even notice a flashy car or the lady who wears a new dress every single week. Those things aren't on the list. If Kohlberg's observation is true, then level 6 thinkers would be in the minority. They might even be misunderstood and persecuted by a level 4 majority (Christ being the primary example).

THEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
How was God to deal with human beings functioning just barely at level two. One million slaves, not yet freed from the lash. To them "good" was more to eat and not being punished. How is He to convince them to follow Him out into a desert wilderness, to face the most hostile tribes of people then on earth, to believe that He will lead them to a "land flowing with milk and honey." More importantly, how is God to teach moral principles to such a group of people.

It is apparent to some students of scripture, that God stooped to reach those people where they were. He began by using reasoning they could accept: level one reasoning.

These slaves, functioning at level one, could be stimulated to think at level three if it presented a better solution to their problem, (and there were many "problems" in the Sinai desert.)

At stage one a ruler establishes his right to rule by displays of power and vengeance upon his enemies. He rules by threat of punishment and hope of reward. Mercy, or failure to punish, is seen as evidence of weakness, not morality by stage one standards.

God first established His credentials to rule Israel by acts of vengeance upon the Egyptians, and by mighty, spectacular miracles. "I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God." (Deut. 29:6 NIV) Each of the plagues of Egypt was directed at an object to worship to the Egyptians - the River Nile, the frog (a fertility symbol), the cattle, the sun, the "first born" (They were considered dedicated to the gods.).

In many instances this situation of God vs the other "gods" (Dagon for example, the god of the Philistines), was involved when God acted in seemingly destructive ways. When we realize that these civilizations were for the most part functioning at level two, or at best level three, the picture becomes clear. If God had done nothing when directly challenged to prove Himself, He would have lost hope of any further influence over those peoples. To initiate a connection with Himself, a point of contact, from which to begin a reeducation He had to use forceful means. It is evident that sometimes these means involved the death of many people (the 185,000 Assyrians for example). If God had done nothing. Or worse If God had tried to use level 5-6 reasoning, the people would have judged Him weak and unworthy of worship. His word would fall upon no receptive ear. The story of Israel is the story of a Father guiding, not one child, but a whole nation of moral children (a whole world of moral children) from childhood to maturity.

Instances of this type of direct confrontation between God and the pagan gods, or between God and individuals who wished to challenge His right to be their God and to rule them, include:

The plagues of Egypt (Exodus 4-13)

The death penalty laws given by God to young Israel (Leviticus 20)

The rebellion of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10)

The Tribe of Levi blessed by God for killing idolaters at Sinai. (Exodus 32-34)

The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers l6)

The 50,000 slain who looked into the Ark after it was returned by the Philistines. (I Sam. 6:19) The plague upon the Philistines who took the Ark (I Sam. 3-7)

Sampson verses the Philistines in the temple of Dagon. (Judges 16)

The Soldiers of the King of Samaria vs Elijah the prophet (II Kings 1:1-17)

The mocking juveniles versus the prophet Elisha (II Kings 2:24)

The Valley of Jehoshaphat when the enemy was confused into fighting against each other. (II Chron. 20)

The command to kill in war with assurance of victory. (Joshua 6:17)

Fifty days after Israel was rescued from Egypt God appeared to them on Mt. Sinai. The people were terrified of the thunder and the glory. Moses, who apparently was functioning at a higher level, tried to explain that there was no need to be afraid. The people preferred a mediator. They said, "Moses, you go talk with God, and come tell us what He said." (Exodus 20:18).

God gave them His law in the form of ten simple, concrete rules, punctuated with threats of punishment. He deliberately portrayed Himself as a angry, jealous ruler, threatening not only to punish the disobedient, but the children for the parents' sins, (a concept which leaves us aghast but would seem perfectly normal to the pre-conventional mind). (Exodus 20:5). Today we almost automatically reinterpret these words to refer to the working to cause and effect, but this does violence to the context in which it was given and would have been a meaningless concept to a pre-scientific culture.

Belief that God punishes children for their parent's sins was chronic in Israel, persisting to the time of Christ. When the disciples saw a blind man they asked, "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" When Christ pronounced a blessing upon the poor, the persecuted, the meek, this seemed incredible, because these were the very ones whom the Israelites thought God was punishing. If you were prosperous, it was a sure sign that you were right with God, because He was blessing you. (The three friends of Job held this belief.) Perhaps the wording of the 2nd commandment - "visting the iniquity of the doctrine. So also, Noah's curse upon Canaan for the sin of Ham (Exodus 20:5)," strengthened belief in this statement of the Lord, "The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16). Exekiel spends a whole chapter arguing vigorously against the people, who protest that it is unjust for God not to punish chilcren for their parents's sins Ezekiel chatper 18, see also Jeremiah 31:29-30). Apparently God had decided it was time to deal with Israel at a higher level.

Today, we understand the words of the second commandment to mean that the wicked habi8ts and unbelief of the Fathers were passed down by teaching and example, to their children who then suffered the consequences. In the time of Moses, the "law" of cause and effect might not have been so understood by a nation of slaves.
After the conquest of Canaan the spectacular displays of power ceased, perhaps because God no longer wished to deal with men at this level. He was seeking to draw them into a higher level of functioning. They however, returned to their idols, in true stage one fashion, as soon as their fear abated. God demonstrated in this way, for all who care to observe, the futility of punishment as a learning tool. Punishment only buys time, until other positive reinforcement techniques can effect permanent changes in behavior.

What was God to do with such a people, when they adopted the pagan gods, even sacrificing their own children on the red hot arms of Dagon. He did the only thing that could be done under the circumstances: He punished them severely, "in furious anger and great wrath," as they perceived it. (Deut. 19:28) At stage 1 they expected Him to do this, or He would have appeared weak in their eyes, hardly worthy of notice, let alone obedience and worship. To be taken seriously at all, God had to punish. By this time in Canaan however, God did not punish them directly, He simply withdrew His protection, and allowed them to be beaten by their many enemies (II Chron. 29:8-9). When they returned to God and burned their idols, God rescued them again and again. Israel was a tiny nation, which could not have survived without God's special protection.

Ezekiel states the stage 1 and 2 reasons: "So I will spend my wrath upon them, and they will know that I am the Lord, when their people lie slain..." (Ezekiel 6:12,13)

God clearly runs the risk of appearing to gain some sort of satisfaction or catharsis from avenging Himself on His enemies, as would a heathen deity. Look at Micah 5:15 : "In anger and in wrath I will execute vengeance." Or Ezekiel 5:13: "Then my anger will cease and my wrath against them will subside, and I will be avenged." In the Old Testament, we see God saying, in effect: "Because you aren't sufficiently afraid of sin, I will have to make you afraid of Me, lest you destroy yourselves and the hope of all future generations."

God had problems over and over with men interpreting His mercy as weakness and a license to do as they pleased without consequences. "I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way." (Deut. 29:19) At stage 2, and in a more sophisticated way at stages 3 and 4, God's mercy is challenged as unjust. "Where is the God of justice?" "It is vain to serve God...evildoers not only prosper, but when they put God to the test, they escape" (Malachi 2:17, 3:14,15) Even the prophet Jeremiah remonstrated with God. "I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper?" (Jer. 12:1). God's tantalizing answer in verse 5 says, in effect, "Jeremiah, this is too advanced for you to understand." (Jer. 12:5). "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord." (Isa. 55:8)

The problem of God's mercy to the wicked is not resolvable at lower stage thinking. It doesn't even arise as a question at stages 5 or 6. Isaiah even says that God shows mercy "because He is just" (Isa. 30:18), a totally incomprehensible statement to early stage moral reasoning.

Stage one is partly characterized by an inability to generalize from principles to their application. Rules are understood very concretely, so they have to be spelled out in complete detail. An example of such detailed instruction is found in the 2nd, 4th, and especially the 10th Commandments. After God has told the Israelites not to covet their neighbor's house, lest they assume that they are left free to covet his other possessions, the Lord adds, "your neighbor's wife or his manservant." But if God had stopped there, Israel would have concluded that it would be permissible to covet the "maidservant", so God spells that out too, and "his ox, nor his ass." Redundantly He adds "nor anything that belongs to your neighbor."

This detailed instruction is what makes the first four books of the Bible so lengthy. At stage 6, the Law may be summed up in two statements: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Luke 10:27) and (Deut 6:5, Lev 19:18). These are not New Testament concepts. They are as old as the Law. It's just that they could not be understood when they were first spoken. The people were morally immature.

After the golden calf debacle at Sinai, God begins to relate to Israel more at the stage 2 level of marketplace bargaining and mutual exchange. He makes an agreement or "covenant" with them: If they obeyed God, He would cause them to prosper, and if they disobeyed then they would not prosper, and might be cut down by their enemies. (Deut. 7:6-26)

Many of the civil and criminal laws were based on the preconventional concept of justice. "Show no pity: life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut. 19:21) God made provision to soften the brutality of stage 1 "blood vengeance" by providing "cities of refuge" where a man could flee who had unintentionally killed someone. (Deut. 19:6) Intention counts at stage 2, so the "avenger of blood" (a classic preconventional phrase!) would have to be functioning at

stage 1, where intention did not count. Of course the premeditated murderer was not safe even in the city of refuge. He would be safe only until a proper trial was held. Then he would be executed. What a far cry from "Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you", spoken by Christ. But that was level 6.

The cities of refuge gradually fell out of use, as such, as the people matured. By the time of Christ, we see the people comfortable in their conventional morality, but cheating the poor and abusing the powerless because everybody does it. (Stage 3) We see them carrying out a multitude of ceremonial observances, some not even given by God, just to make sure that they are being obedient to the Law. (Stage 4) God says through the prophet Amos: "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies...but let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:21,24) God is trying to lead them to the heart of the Law, and not just the letter. He would rather have them "act justly and love mercy" than to bring Him "thousands of rams with ten thousand rivers of oil." (Micah 6:6-8)

Justice at the conventional levels (3-4) is understood in the sense of what we commonly mean when we talk about "criminal justice." Justice demands that a lawbreaker be punished, that the penalty must be paid. In Ezekiel's time the people protested that God was unjust if He did not punish a wicked man who had repented (Ezekiel 18:25). God's answer was, "But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed...he will surely live, he will not die. Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?" (Ezekiel 18:27-29)

Listed in Lev. 20, is the penalty for adultery - death by stoning. But Christ Himself forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, and she began a process of rehabilitation. Here again is contrasted stage two level thinking with stage 6. In fact all of Christ's teaching was level 6 or level 7.

At stage 4, the saying "a good day's work for a good day's pay" is a truism. In the parable of the workers (Matt. 20:1-16), those who worked only one hour were paid the same as those who had worked all day (unjust?). Christ confronted the Pharisees with the contrast between conventional justice and God's justice. Those who come to Christ at the last hour will receive the same reward, the same eternal life, as those who have walked with Christ all of their lives.

In the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, the conventional respectability of the Jewish ruling class came under fire. The publican had a true heart repentance and love of God, and so was acceptable and savable. The Pharisee had only outward form and ceremony (level 4 morality). He felt no need of God, and so could not grow morally. He was self- satisfied. No question or problem called for a higher level solution. In the time of Christ the fear of a punishing God had generated a compulsion for rule making, and a backbreaking mass of regulations covering every detail of living. Much of the teaching of Christ seems to have been directed at weaning the people away from mechanical rule keeping. The Pharisees were threatened because they felt He didn't have enough respect for the rules (or for themselves). What they did not perceive was the higher stage thinking (level 5-6) that He was trying to lead them towards.

The Sermon on the Mount, (Matt. 5) is an excellent example of level 5-6 morality. It is heavy with principle not prescription, yet some would use this, in true stage 4 fashion, as a more rigorous rule book, providing more detailed regulations on such things as divorce and remarriage. To do this is to miss the overall intent of the sermon.

Christ's teaching and example of Sabbath keeping provides another example of the superiority of principles over rule keeping. The statement "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" revealed a level 5-6 understanding of the nature of rules. Rules are valid only insofar as they promote the freedom and value of persons. God knew that human beings needed time with Him, time to consider who they are, time to turn attention to their relationship with their Heavenly Father. Level 6 people have no problem enjoying the Sabbath Day. It is at level 1-4 that the Sabbath seems a duty to be performed.

At stage 5-6, commands become promises. "Thou shalt not kill", becomes "I can stop hurting myself or others through the power of God in my life." What wonderful good news! This is righteousness by faith.

At level 6 God's commands just make good sense. For instance God' commanded Israel not to eat fat or blood under any circumstances. (Lev. 7:22-27) Just think what health benefits would have come from adherence to this prescription. Level 6 individuals see God as the one who tells you to do, what you would want to do anyway, if you knew what was really good for you. And He doesn't just tell you to do it, He helps you do it.

Jesus' healing of the paralytic illustrates wonderfully the concept of forgiveness at level 6. The young man was paralyzed, a consequence of his own foolish choices. His friends let his bed down through the roof, right at the feet of Jesus in the middle of a great crowd. Jesus said to him simply "Your sins are forgiven." The Pharisees questioned this statement, because to them forgiveness is a legal maneuver and unjustly releases the guilty party from punishment. So Jesus then said "Which is easier to say, ?your sins are forgiven', or ?get up and walk.'" You see, healing the damage done by sin is what forgiveness is all about. It is not just juggling the heavenly books so Uncle Harry can get in. Forgiveness means giving Uncle Harry a "new heart (or mind)," healed now from the damage done by sin.

Kohlberg suggests that there may be (I believe there is) a level 7. Whether it stands totally outside of the other moral stages, I do not know. Stage 6 implies a perfect equivalence of duties and rights. "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The stage 6 person believes he may expect of others the same things that he is willing to give to them. But the love of the saints goes beyond expecting anything of others. Agape acts are of grace, without regard for merit or return. They go a giant step beyond. This is a self-sacrificing love. Agape love creates value in its object. This is why the command to "Love one another as I have loved you," was a "new commandment." This is why Christ said, "You must be born again."

Stage development exhibits a phenomenon called lateral decollage. That is, it may take a person just reaching Stage 5, for example, a long time for the implications of his new way of thinking to filter out into all areas of his thinking. Since religious thought is often tightly compartmentalized, with its own jargon and thought forms, insulated from the rest of our thinking, theological concepts may take on a life of their own and be relatively impervious to advancements in the rest of our thinking. In other words, a person's theology may lag at least one stage behind the rest of his thinking processes. This may explain why highly educated persons may have very primitive theological notions, or why successful business men or even educators may not be able to relate to their own children at home.

A great many of the problems within the church may be explained by these differences in stage thinking. Level 4 people are anxious that the rules be kept, while level 6 persons who want to discuss general principles, are called "liberal." Level 6 persons may become very bored with legalistic sermons aimed at level 4, or with level 2 -the fiery hell and damnation threats, while level 4 members feel threatened by questions which seem to undermine the authority of God and His Law or His church.

Those Christians who are functioning at higher levels of maturity must realize that stage development is normal and necessary. They must not be prejudiced towards those who are functioning at lower levels, who cannot understand many of those things which the more mature take for granted. They must be patient, seeking to draw others towards a higher level of understanding without belittling them or diminishing their current experience in faith. To do this is to work with God.

The story of Israel, miraculously written down and preserved for 3,500 years, is the story of God and man, in miniature. God's efforts to save men from themselves, to lead them to greater understanding, to pull them into a relationship with Himself, are a revelation of His character. Reading this story, we may consider the evidence, and decide for ourselves if God truly loves us.

STAGE THEORY AND THE ATONEMENT
The sacrifice of Christ, His substitutionary death, "the Atonement," takes on greater and deeper meaning at each level of moral development. God chose the perfect way to win mankind back to Himself. He chose an act which could be understood and accepted at each level of development, an act which while comprehensible to the person at level 2, takes on greater and greater significance at each level.

Level 1:Man sinned and offended God. God responded with angry vengeance taking the life of Jesus.

Level 2:God somehow struck a bargain with the Devil, a market place exchange of Christ's life, paid as a ransom to the Devil, in trade for the devil's releasing his hostages. In the popular version, Satan found out too late that God had conned him, when Christ rose from the dead.

Level 3-4 :The Law must be kept. Man broke the Law. Someone had to pay the penalty. "The wages of sin is death." Jesus

paid that penalty. The integrity of the Law was maintained.

(Let me here say that I believe that there is a true level four understanding of why the Son of God had to become a human being, live a life of perfect loyalty to God his father, and then be murdered - the victim of Satan and evil men. Satan's claim to dominion of the earth is based in large part upon a level four argument. He is the great legalist. He claimed that Adam and his posterity had rebelled against God every bit as Lucifer himself did. Because of this, Satan claimed dominion over the human race. He claimed this earth as his kingdom. When Jesus Christ was born a human being, and then lived in perfect obedience to His father's will, "even unto death," the Father could then give to Christ the dominion of the earth. Satan could not point to any rebellion in Christ as a reason why God the Father should not thus give to Christ the dominion.)

Level 5-6:He demonstrated that separation from God is death. ("Why have you forsaken me?") Since we separate ourselves from Him, not He from us, He is not our executioner. He allowed Satan to play out his hand, exposing his selfish character for all both man and angels to see, and thus erasing all sympathy for the accusations of the fallen foe. God's character was vindicated.

Level 7:Atonement becomes at-one-ment. God did what it took to win our love and trust. His love for us is greater than any man can comprehend, that the eternal God of the universe should so value a human being, that He would die to win his love. Neither God, nor His law, defined as the eternal principles upon which He bases His government, change, but our understanding of His law changes, and God speaks to us at each level of our understanding. It is a mistake to cling to expressions appropriate to an earlier age of understanding, regardless of how valid and useful they were in their own context, when more appropriate expressions exist. But we must be patient with our brethren who perhaps are just beginning their maturing process, and allow the pastor to preach for them sometimes. For even as God was laying down detailed concrete rules for the Israelites, He was already looking forward to the day when He would "write His laws on our hearts."

THE ISSUE IS NOT, "WHO HAS THE GREATER POWER":

THE LEGAL MODEL

for children at Sinai
THE ISSUE IS, "WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?"

THE TRUST HEALING MODEL

for those who grow to "full stature"

the Cross:
atone/ment, better blood, a debt paid
at-one-ment; a demonstration of perfect trust in God, our Father

Forgiveness:
to avoid punishment, to avoid God's anger or wrath a legal maneuver
to be healed (sodso); to be restored to a relationship; to be welcomed home

Wrath:
plagues, hell

punishment dealt out by an angry God
natural consequence,

results of separation from God

Close of Probation:
God's patience exhausted / God shuts the door.

God rejects sinners / Jesus stops pleading with God
Jesus has exhausted every means, and some still reject HIM

Discipline:
chastisement, punishment
to teach (from "disciple", one who is taught)

Guilt:
a feeling - "I'm awful". That for which I will be punished, produces fear.
a fact: I have hurt my Lord or another person. Produces sorrow.

Sin:
transgression of 1-10
rebellion against the Father’s will, refusing HIS love, that which causes others harm

Mediator:
a skillful attorney pleading with a stern Father to change His mind and forgive us
a messenger on our level, pleading with us in God's behalf

Judge:
Christ - God
we ourselves, the truth

the Father:
stern, unforgiving, and severe, watching to condemn, forgives only after much pleading
hurting, longing for our companionship, anxiously waiting to heal as soon as we trust

Motivating Factor:
fear-leading to outward correctness of behavior
love for Christ, love for God,

love of God's true character

the Sabbath:
arbitrary test of obedience

(no mechanism for healing the damage done)
a great gift, prophetic,

a symbol of creative healing power

Don't underestimate the pharisees. They wanted very much to be saved. They wanted very much to please God, as they understood Him. If you perceive God as a severe and exacting god - you will become severe and exacting yourself.

Christ died for sinless angels who need no change in their legal status, but who do needed to understand the truth of God's character and the falseness of Satan's charges against Him.

"The man who obeys God from a sense of obligation merely, never enters into the joy of obedience, in fact he does not obey."

Red Bunny| 8.17.09 @ 7:18PM

Blue Staters live together without marriage, and oopps baby abort it!

Christopher Dart| 8.17.09 @ 7:23PM

Hey, Alan--I think gay men look at porn, too, though... ha ha

But I see your points and you make some good ones, but I do disagree a bit with your conclusion. Yes, you can't have heaven on earth, although (as I was reminded in our church's sermon yesterday) Jesus did tell us to pray "Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven." So, there is something there in the "now and not yet" nature of the kingdom of God that is present among us now, among the people of God, and again, in light of Jesus' "great commission" and the example of the apostles, expanding this same kingdom is the role of the new testament church (and people like you and me)--until He comes again. And the word "kingdom" implies a whole lot more than just a "wait until you die" mentality that has plagued so much of American Christendom for too long now.

So, how do we do this? If we are indeed "in this world and not of it," that puts us in the difficult, frustrating position where we can neither retreat into isolated communities nor just uncritically "go with the flow" of the rest of society. Instead, we are required by our frequent confusion to throw ourselves at the feet of Christ, seeking discernment and strength (and grace!) to do just that, and He will inevitably direct us to one another for help in that journey. That is why the whole idea of being a "lone ranger" Christian is so absurd. We need church communities where there are safe places (small groups, etc.) to be honest about our issues and temptations, where we can gain insight and discernment and support to live in this narrow way. Otherwise, we life two-faced lives of great hypocrisy, or we go the little house on the prairie route you mentioned and fail to be the "salt and light" we are transformed to be, or we just live like everybody else and lose all "saltiness" to be any good to anyone else (let alone become calloused in our own relationship with God).

No one said following Christ was easy, it's ridiculously hard at times, and I mess up a lot. But I am not alone in my journey, and the odd thing I find with God is that the closer I am walking with Him, the further out He tends to draw me into the "dark" places of society where there is little of His light. I am not special, but (on my good days) I am willing, and it is God's will for all of us to do the same, in our own contexts. The "good news" in that (especially for us guys) is that authentic Christianity is indeed an exciting journey, something that should appeal to any man worthy of being called one. :-)

Ammo Guy| 8.17.09 @ 10:26PM

Alan Brooks, I cannot believe that you left off your list of great conservatives the name of the distinguished editor of the magazine that sponsors this website - a one Bob Tyrrell.

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 11:32PM

I saw this article as a bit of an attack on Christians in the party, apparently many saw it as a chance to quote bible verse.

Mr Dart is clearly trying to put me in his own packaged little version of Christianity. That aside, my point with my comment was that it seems to me Daniel Allott is more than a little put out with the Christians that he sees within our party and and in my view would probably be happy to see them go. I'm tired of hearing people state who should and who shouldn't be in the party. I work every day with Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans and others. I have to accept them, I don't have to agree with them and quite frankly I enjoy the conversation at times. There is room for these folks in our party just as there is room for imperfect Conservative Christians (and according to Mr. Dart I'm one, pray for me). There is room for pro-lifers, lawyers, neo-cons, birthers, Teamsters, and there is even room for reformed Obama voters. I'll welcome anyone who is willing to give Conservatisim a chance. ITS A BIG TENT, stop being self appointed bouncers!

Polyester Mather | 8.18.09 @ 12:08AM

One must deplore Kohlberg's impudence.

Despite this intellectual carpetbagger's intrusion, many at Harvard remain devoted to the permanent things , like blood sports, the poetics of T.S. Eliot, fornication , snuff bottle collecting , and beating Yale .

KRB| 8.18.09 @ 8:24AM

The out-of-wedlock birth rates in the states you have chosen are not linked uniquely to evangelicals.

Tim R| 8.18.09 @ 6:28PM

The author should not compare out-of-wedlock birth rates in Mississippi and Louisiana with those of New Hampshire and Minnesota. Take a close look at the demographics of these states. The southern states have heavy minority populations that scarcely exist in the north.

sestamibi| 8.18.09 @ 6:30PM

Haven't plowed through all the comments here, so in case someone above didn't raise these issues:

Could it be that red states have higher divorce rates because blue state couples are less likely to get married in the first place?

Could it be that red states have higher abortion rates because blue state women are far less likely to get pregnant in the first place?

Rich Rostrom| 8.18.09 @ 8:11PM

The plural of anecdote is not data. And I question the usefulness of "correlating" divorce, abortion, or illegitimacy statistics at the levels cited. Several of the "red states" have very large minority populations that dissent from those states' political majorities and also have substantially distinct cultural values. There are groups and sub-groups and sub-sub-groups to be distinguished. Without such breakdowns, the statistics are of very limited use.

Bendejo Rojo| 8.19.09 @ 2:27AM

"For every Bill Clinton there's…well, there's only one Slick Willie."

Dude got a blowjob off an unmarried lady. Have you read the Sanford emails; dude was hardcore in love with some Spaniard chick who was married. His wife just moved out. Dude is finished. I predict he'll move to Argentina within 2 years, and then his hot little Spanish loveshack will break his heart and he'll move into a slum and cry all day into his dirty pajamas.

Needless to say, stop with the Clinton hate, you jealous pansies. Clinton pwned all your sorry asses.

GL| 8.19.09 @ 3:57PM

"IMO, ortho v. Cons is sophistry" Well, I was merely pointing out that self-identifying one's self as a "conservative Christian" does not mean that one is in fact practicing the faith of our fathers (i.e., orthodoxy) -- ALL of whom, prior to the last quarter of the 19th century, condemned any effort to separate sex from procreation. What IVF and contraception have in common is that they are both efforts to do this very thing. Contraception attempts to have sex without procreation; IVF attempts to have procreation without sex. And yes, all men sin and come short of the glory of God. That is not the issue. The issue is whether one recognizes his conduct as a sin and an evil or as a right and a good. Far too many "conservative Christians" view contraception and IVF as rights and goods, when in fact they are sins and evil. One is simply not going to confess and repent of acts which he believes to be acts which he has a right to perform and to, in fact, be good. And so the evil spreads. In any event, if conservatism and orthodoxy are the same thing, then Jon and Kate are neither.

Pingback| 9.18.09 @ 12:03PM

Berardelli Says: Bill Thompson Stole My Tagline | Sheepshead Bay News Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…octuplets, entitled “Eight Is Enough”, or he might be under the impression that no one in Thompson’s camp did, either. Let’s hope that there will not be another television show about a family with (at least) eight children, another set of eight babies born, or another politician trying to get voted in beyond eight years (etc.) — because television executives, media…

Trackback| 12.7.09 @ 10:32PM

credit repair new hampshire, on credit repair new hampshire, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

This is a great website. I like it alot.

The American Spectator

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment

Kitty| 8.17.09 @ 7:12AM

JP| 8.17.09 @ 7:28AM

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 8:18AM

Ryan| 8.17.09 @ 9:15AM

Gary | 8.17.09 @ 9:21AM

BCosby| 8.17.09 @ 9:26AM

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 9:46AM

Eric Damon| 8.17.09 @ 9:51AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 9:51AM

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 9:57AM

Appleby| 8.17.09 @ 10:21AM

JP| 8.17.09 @ 10:28AM

Helpless Hetero| 8.17.09 @ 10:34AM

Doctor Right| 8.17.09 @ 10:48AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:42AM

Ken (Old Texican| 8.17.09 @ 11:44AM

Seek| 8.17.09 @ 11:49AM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 11:57AM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:01PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:04PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 12:23PM

Liberal Reader| 8.17.09 @ 1:35PM

Sam Hendrickson| 8.17.09 @ 1:45PM

Francis Beckwith| 8.17.09 @ 1:55PM

BD57| 8.17.09 @ 2:12PM

JP| 8.17.09 @ 2:38PM

PolishKnight| 8.17.09 @ 2:54PM

Liberal Reader| 8.17.09 @ 3:05PM

PolishKnight| 8.17.09 @ 3:20PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:31PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:37PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 3:52PM

GL| 8.17.09 @ 4:41PM

Brian| 8.17.09 @ 6:06PM

Christopher Dart| 8.17.09 @ 6:21PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 6:26PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 6:58PM

Alan Brooks| 8.17.09 @ 7:08PM

Red Bunny| 8.17.09 @ 7:18PM

Christopher Dart| 8.17.09 @ 7:23PM

Ammo Guy| 8.17.09 @ 10:26PM

Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 11:32PM

Polyester Mather | 8.18.09 @ 12:08AM

KRB| 8.18.09 @ 8:24AM

Tim R| 8.18.09 @ 6:28PM

sestamibi| 8.18.09 @ 6:30PM

Rich Rostrom| 8.18.09 @ 8:11PM

Bendejo Rojo| 8.19.09 @ 2:27AM

GL| 8.19.09 @ 3:57PM

Pingback| 9.18.09 @ 12:03PM

Trackback| 12.7.09 @ 10:32PM

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

More Articles by Daniel Allott

January 25, 2012 | 156 comments

January 6, 2012 | 134 comments

December 27, 2011 | 81 comments

December 21, 2011 | 433 comments

December 14, 2011 | 65 comments

More Articles From The Nation's Pulse

Matthew Omolesky|3 comments

Mark Tooley|25 comments

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|27 comments

Gerald Nachman|4 comments

Robert M. Goldberg|23 comments

Christopher Orlet|19 comments

Jeremy Lott|12 comments

Gerald J. Russello|2 comments

Matt Naugle

Aaron Goldstein

Quin Hillyer

Aaron Goldstein

Aaron Goldstein

Quin Hillyer

Jeffrey Lord

Hunter Baker

Clip of the Day