The New Morality, part 1

In response to the state of North Carolina amending its constitution to preclude state recognition of any marriage other than that between one man and one woman, Christian author Rachel Held Evans published a piece on her blog which you can access here. In her piece she bemoans the fact that, as she puts it, American Evangelicalism is "winning the culture war, but losing a generation" of the young. Her basis for this assertion is, first, research done by the Barna Group in which they questioned Americans ages 16-29 what words or phrases best describe Christianity; the first response was "antihomosexual." Her second source is a couple of books by David Kinnaman, "unChristian" and "You Lost Me" in which he says that one of the top reasons 59% of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends.


Ms. Evans, I'm afraid, is completely wrong in her assertion that Christians are winning the culture war. The amendment to the North Carolina constitution may represent one small political victory, but it is only that--a political victory, not a cultural victory. The statistics she quotes regarding the opinions of young Americans are indicative that on the cultural front we are indeed losing.


Her second error can be found in this quote from her piece:

My generation is tired of the culture wars. We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.

Why would she, or anyone else for that matter, think that Christians believe they are advancing the Kingdom of God by voting to preserve traditional marriage? Jesus very clearly said that his kingdom was not of this world which is why his disciples would not engage in armed insurrection to save him. When I vote in favor of Biblical values, I do so not to advance the kingdom of God, but to preserve the social order of my country; because I understand that the abandonment of these values will--and has--lead to the debasement of is culture and the degradation of its community. This is a divine command, often called the cultural mandate; but it is not a command to advance the Kingdom of God, but rather a command by God to build a culture on Earth with the resources He has given. This cultural mandate is obeyed when we work at our jobs, when we raise a family--and when we exercise our political responsibilities to structure our laws and society according to Biblical moral truth.


The greater question of the culture war and the appalling statistics of attitudes toward Christianity by young Americans (including those raised within Evangelical Christian homes) is a crucial issue faced by the Church today. My assertion that we are losing the culture war is to a large extent based on the statics that Ms. Evans highlights in her piece as well as the work of sociologist Christian Smith presented in his book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. A synopsis of his findings can be found here. Smith, after exhaustive interviews of American teens of faith found them, in the vast majority, incapable of articulating even the most basic concepts of the religion in which they were raised, and, regardless of the home religion, holding to a sort of vague concept of God Smith dubbed "Moral Therapeutic Deism." The gist of this “moral therapeutic deism” goes something like this: “God wants me to be happy and wants me to be good. He mostly leaves me alone unless I’m unhappy or in trouble, then he’ll sort of help me out somehow. Good people go to heaven.” These nebulous ideas are apparently consistent across most faiths in which American teens are raised including all forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hindu. Notice that within this concept no reference is made to any Holy text or transcendent system of ethics—just, “God wants me to be good.” And this raises the essential question: how do American youth define “good”?


Further work by the Barna Group points to the answer. Here is a quote from an article citing their research on American trends with respect to morality (you can access the complete article here):

We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America," said the researcher and author, who has been surveying national trends in faith and morality for more than a quarter-century. "Mosaics [below aged 25] have had little exposure to traditional moral teaching and limited accountability for such behavior. The moral code began to disintegrate when the generation before them - the Baby Busters - pushed the limits that had been challenged by their parents - the Baby Boomers. The result is that without much fanfare or visible leadership, the U.S. has created a moral system based on convenience, feelings, and selfishness.
"The consistent deterioration of the Bible as the source of moral truth has led to a nation where people have become independent judges of right and wrong, basing their choices on feelings and circumstances. It is not likely that America will return to a more traditional moral code until the nation experiences significant pain from its moral choices.

Here we come to the crux of both the loss of the culture war and the loss of the youth generation to the Christian Church because of its identification with Biblical moral truth. What has happened is that starting with my generation--the Baby Boomers--and progressing--and intensifying--through successive generations of Americans, the country is abandoning traditional and Biblical morality and inventing a "New" morality. This new morality is completely detached from any guiding principles that informed Judeo/Christian morality or even other traditions of morality proceeding from Islam, Hinduism, or even Buddhism--namely sacred texts or a concept of morality emanating from divine command. Rather, this new morality is based on feeling, in essence the mood, whim, and sensations of the individual as they occur moment to moment. Not only is no reference made to any sort of transcendent code or ideal, many young people today seem incapable of making such evaluations, so bereft are they of such concepts. In a radio interview with a researcher studying this phenomenon, I recently heard him tell his host that when his young research subjects were asked when they last confronted a moral dilemma, they most often were confused by the question and would reply with a story such as being frustrated when they wanted to buy something from a vending machine and found that they didn't have enough change on them to make the purchase. Consider this shocking reality: they did not have the intellectual tools to even think in moral categories. Therefore their judgements are based on how their choices (or the choices of others) will make them feel. If an action makes them sad or angry or hurts their feelings, or the feelings of those for whom they care, that action is deemed "bad".


If this seems overstated consider the language used by Ms. Evans:

Most feel that the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among their gay and lesbian friends, particularly those who are gay and Christian… We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere 'issue.' These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell… Amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adults—both Christians and non-Christian—from the Church.

Even Ms. Evans seems completely unconcerned with Biblical authority concerning this issue, choosing instead to merely separate people into two groups who have differing views, and pleading for group A not to hurt the feelings of group B.


Dennis Prager, writer and long-time radio talk show host, has for many years gone to high schools and colleges to speak with young Americans on issues of morality and ethics. He often recounts how that for more than 20 years now he has presented his young audiences with the following ethical question:

You are passing a body of water and see that a person who is a stranger to you and your beloved pet dog or cat are both drowning. You can only save one, either the stranger or your pet. Which would you save?

Mr. Prager says from the beginning of when he began posing this question, the majority of teens and young adults answer that they would save their pet—because they know and love their pet; the stranger is just a stranger. Furthermore, Mr. Prager says the percentage of the young who answer this way has consistently gone up over the years.


This is where we now find ourselves: in the midst of a culture war whose battles may often be fought in the political arena, but whose real source of conflict is two opposing forms of morality struggling for ascendancy. The out-workings of this new morality in our culture, legal system, and society—as well as our churches—I will deal with in my next post.