Two very interesting stories have broken in the past two days: 1) Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) was sexually-involved with a prostitute for the better part of a year, and 2) One in four teenage girls (age 14-19) have some form of sexually-transmitted disease. These stories are both interesting and incredibly sad. The image of the squeaky-clean politician has long been forgotten, and even those self-identified as moral crusaders are often exposed as the greatest of hypocrites. In addition, the old picture of "Daddy's little girl" with its connotation of virtue and modesty has been replaced by a quite-disgusting picture of moral license.
Underlying such promiscuity and infidelity lies irresponsibility of the most fundamental sort and a flawed philosophy of humanity. The irresponsibility is exhibited in a lack of personal commitment, parental guidance, self-respect, and a general exploitation by the educational system. Children are not often talk basic values of right and wrong, and even when they are, often lack the desire to put their virtuous upbringing into personal practice. In an educational system where morality lacks any true foundation and is often treated as a matter of self-interest, virtue becomes denigrated even further. In addition, self-respect (and a general adolescent culture of depression) undermines self-respect, which can only become more despised after promiscuous acts.
Beneath these various issues of responsibility lies a flawed philosophy of humanity: ontological dualism. Particularly popular (but not self-consciously identified) in the present culture is the mind/body dualism, in which one's mind and body are treated as two separate entities. This dualism is aptly displayed in the movie "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," when the evil Sheriff of Nottingham tried to rape Maid Marion. As he tried to commit his heinous act, she cried out "You might have my body, but it's not me! It's not me!" While good for movie fodder, that line is not true at all. A person is both mind and body. This is evidenced in the total coordination between mind and body in the person, and the division created by such a dualism leads to the labeling of certain types (i.e. the mentally handicapped) as "less than human." If a teenager's body is not made distinctly valuable through a complete view of individual personhood, they are likely to treat it a Platonic "prison house of the soul" rather than something with real value.
Yet the disease underlying the initially-stated symptoms and their contributing factors is the simple matter of sin. Sin affects every part of humanity and the created order and manifests itself in various forms. In the present day, sin is a taboo and its logical implications avoided. Thus, the deeper questions must be asked. Why are teenagers extraordinarily promiscuous? Why do they not take themselves and life more seriously? Why do they not respect their bodies and treat other bodies as means to an end? Why do they avoid asking these deep questions?
To the final question: Perhaps it is because the hardest of questions belie even harder answers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In response to your last set of questions, I think we must also take into account the fact that teenagers, especially teenage girls--and really all of us--are seeking love and to be loved. If they aren't getting it at home, and if their parents aren't teaching them how to love themselves enough to respect themselves, and if they aren't turning to God for that love, then they're going to look in other quarters.
I think there are many teenagers who ask deep questions, it's just that the overwhelming desire to be loved trumps those questions and any answers they may find. It's another area in which we see the need for a true understanding of God's love and of the need for whole families and Christian teaching in the home.
I suppose that the question is to what extent the institutional church in its various denomination can/should speak into public education.
What "standards of morality" can we all agree on?
Thank you each for your comments!
Linds--Thanks for highlighting the emotional and spiritual aspects alongside the intellectual.
Ryno--I would argue that the Church has no right to speak into public education. At the same time, the purpose of education is the impartation of knowledge, not the inculcation of morality. As the government is not inherently a religious institution, it should not attempt to teach values of which it has no knowledge. As an aside, we should consider whether the impartation of knowledge is a government prerogative, or whether it is a matter to be attended to by parents and their communities.
Finally, the "standards of morality" that we can all agree upon are found in the law written on the human heart. That (natural)law is reinforced by every common grace discipline, which attests to basic values that must be maintained in a just society (e.g. abortion is wrong and unjust, which can be demonstrated on philosophical and biological grounds while appealing to the conscience).
Someone agrees with you:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57187
(hope that link works)
;)
Post a Comment