Here are the Blogs in the moral relativism category.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Gender Confusion
 It finally happened! A friend of this writer recently went through orientation to teach in the Montgomery County School system in Tennessee. On the surface, this would not seem extraordinary but what happened during the course of the orientation was. You see, dear reader, he was in this particular session with a cross-dresser! To beat it all, this cross-dresser was scheduled to teach in an elementary school within the county.
I, for one, would be highly upset to find out that one of my children’s elementary school teachers was a cross-dresser. Whether he chooses to dress like a she during instructional periods is unknown. However, how does one answer when his child sees this teacher out in public dressed as a woman?
Just a few decades ago, men dressed like women to get a few laughs. Popular comedians dressed in female attire to illicit responses from audiences. Now, men dress as women for various reasons. Certain types of cross-dressers are considered to have psychological abnormalities. According to the American Psychological Association, people who practice this behavior are generally harmless, but this behavior still might create confusion among young and impressionable minds (Bryan Strong, et al. (2005), Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America, McGraw Hill: Boston).
It is amazing to consider the changes that have occurred in regard to gender roles in our great nation. There is confusion in the contemporary world and even in the church about the roles that men and women are to play in the culture, in the home, and in the church. While the cross-dressing phenomenon is an extreme example, it serves to underscore the fact that many do not know how to function in their gender roles.
The Bible has simple answers regarding the roles of men and women in the various facets of life. God created a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden. They were created in separate and distinct fashions. This would be true of their anatomy, psychology, emotional natures, and physical appearances. However, the trend that one sees in our culture is a blurring and erasing of the features that makes a person decidedly female or male. Men do not know how to be men, and women do not know how to be women. Romans 1:24 says, “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.”
God created men and women differently for various reasons. The idea of being a “suitable helpmeet” would include elements from a man and woman in a marital relationship that makes one whole unit, or as this writer’s wife would say, “I am here to smooth out your rough edges.” Genesis 2:20 tells us, “…But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.”
Just last week, the state of Vermont legalized same-sex marriage. This is an attack on the sanctity of marriage and causes further confusion of the appropriate roles that men and women are to play in families. Men were created with the appropriate role of serving as husbands, and women were created with the role of serving as wives. Matthew 19:5 states, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” There is nothing wrong with one’s decision to remain single as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 7, but only a man and a woman can be scripturally married in God’s eyes.
One reason for creating two sexes was for the purpose of procreation. “…Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…” (Genesis 1:28). If same-sex marriage became the rule rather than the exception, what would happen to the human race? It would cease to exist.
Men cannot do everything a woman can do and vice versa. This is not a stab at the intelligence of a woman or a man. God created the sexes different for good reason. There are things that are unique to the female experience and things that are unique to the male experience. A woman cannot father a child. A man cannot have a child through natural means. The differences that exist between the sexes are a blessing and we should thank God for the uniqueness of each sex.
Our society’s gender confusion has crept into the church where many are arguing for the expanded role of women in the public worship assembly. Women are taking on and accepting roles of evangelist or elder in some churches. It may not be considered a psychological abnormality for women to fill these roles, but the clear teachings in 1 Timothy 2:12 are being overlooked. How far will the church go to not teach proper roles for men and women? If clear teachings on leadership roles in the church can be overlooked, will the church one day be just as confused over crossdressering? Posted on 05/26/2010 1:16 PM by Johnny O. Trail
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
They Can’t All Be Edward Cullen
The world is awash in moony-eyed girls (and even grown women) who have fallen for the otherworldly charms of a fictional vampire named Edward Cullen from the Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga; which now encompasses four books, two movies, and a countless minutia of marketing paraphernalia.
Readers across the globe have lost themselves in the tumultuous and dangerous relationship of the vampire Edward and his mortal girlfriend, Bella Swan. The reason for the adoration—the embodiment of a one-true-love, a perfect completion of ourselves, a rightness to our world that can only exist with that person known as our “soul mate” that is personified between these two characters.
A danger more insidious than a boyfriend who wants to drain the blood from your body is gripping single women in mass proportions. That danger is known as “soul-mate-ism.” Soul-mate-ism, a term coined by Dr. Scott Stanley of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, is defined as:
The belief that you will find in a mate the one unique person on the planet who understands your deepest desires and fears, accepts all of who you are unconditionally and who becomes joined to you, making one complete whole in mind, body and soul. The power of this type of relationship is so great that you will know fully and rapidly when you find “the one.” Furthermore, if you have not married “the one,” you should move on.
Obviously, this extreme expectation can, and is, leading to a lot of heartaches as the majority of single women (94%) claim that “when you marry you want your spouse to be your soul mate, first and foremost,” according to a 2001 survey of 1,300 people ages 20-29 conducted by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Also included in the study is the belief that 42% of single young adults believe that it is important to find a spouse who shares your religion. Did you catch that? Ninety-four percent believe in a soul mate, but only 42% believe in finding someone good for your soul!
In a section of his book, The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love, entitled “Myths about Soul Mates,” Dr. Stanley writes, “Soul-mate-ism conveys an expectation of heavenly connection that makes earthbound relationships more difficult. As with any other unrealistic expectation, it can make you more disappointed than is warranted by the normal ups and downs of married life.” Marriage will be difficult because it exists on an earthly plane where troubles and concerns abound. The problem of adhering to the philosophy of soul-mate-ism is the inevitability of being disappointed by the one whom we once perceived to be our perfect complement.
As defined above, once your bright-eyed bubble of a world of never-ending love and adoration comes crashing down, you simply acknowledge the fact that “Oops! I didn’t marry my soul mate after all. Well, I better not keep him waiting any longer. See ya later, first (or second, or third) husband. My soul mate is out there somewhere, and I have to go find him.” Soul-mate-ism will lead to a life of discontent, sorrow, and loneliness.
In regards to whom one should marry, I would draw upon my “vast” ten-year experience as an “old married lady” and tell the throngs of “soul-seekers” that while our hearts, minds, and bodies (Ephesians 6:31; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) may belong to our spouses, our souls belong to the One who made them. To put it plainly, don’t look for a relationship with your soul mate; look for a relationship with your soul’s Maker. He is the only one who truly offers a “happily ever after” (Revelation 2:10).
In his book, Dr. Stanley also states, “While I believe that what you do after you marry is the most critical factor in being successful in life, I and other marriage researchers also believe that making a wise, careful, unrushed choice up front is the very best way to begin a life with another.”
The advice I will give my daughter on whom she should marry will be, “Wait for the one whom you can’t live without in this life, and whom you won’t have to live without in the next. And remember, they can’t all be Edward Cullen!”
Bibliography
Stanley, Scott M. The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2005.
Stanley, Scott M., “Myths about Soul Mates.” Boundless Webzine. 14 Nov. 2009 <http://www.boundless.org/aprint2005.cfm?url=http://www.boundless.org/2005/arti>
As an antidote to soul-mate-ism, Stanley advocates commitment. "It is deep commitment between two partners for life that makes it possible to have a profound connection." From CNN 8-9-09 Posted on 05/26/2010 1:36 PM by Sharon Simmons
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Beliefs in Medicine and How They Impact You
When we are sick and most vulnerable, we place our lives into the hands of physicians and caregivers for we trust them. These social servants possess knowledge and expertise. They are committed to improving the lives of patients and never abandoning the sick and the vulnerable in their time of greatest need. Medicine generally is a good and beneficent practice committed to the betterment of humanity and thus it is not a morally neutral practice. Health care practitioners spend untold hours studying, acquiring the beliefs and skills of experience for the betterment of humanity. Indeed Western society is fashioned in part by contemporary beliefs in medicine. Though many beliefs in medicine are benign, some may be harmful and even malignant. Few of us are aware of the deepest moral convictions and beliefs of those who take care of us, yet we trust them in our moments of greatest trepidation and vulnerability.
In years past physicians took forms of the Hippocratic Oath. This oath and covenant expressed their commitment to benefitting the sick and keeping them from harm and injustice. In the classic oath, physicians would swear “In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”1 Although the Oath has various merits, much of the classic oath has been set aside. Few find any value in swearing by the Greek gods Apollo the Physician, Hygieia, and Panaceia or in strict surgical prohibitions. However, principles of beneficence (doing good) and nonmaleficence (avoiding harm) still linger as they were derived from this code. Certainly, there is a greater covenant and oath than that of Hippocrates; the covenant of Christ far transcends any doctrine of Hippocrates.
Across the medical landscape, the moral compass in medicine spins in many different and diverse directions. This landscape is scattered with differing beliefs on the source of ethics (whether religious or secular) and how we know what is ethical.2 To the Christian, what is ethical rests firmly in ultimate Moral Source (God) and His moral Truth (the Biblical revelation). Among secular answers, moral relativism is often embraced. Moral relativism says that there is no independent objective moral truth. This belief, while often portrayed as tolerant and loving, impacts medicine and may ultimately impact you.
While secular medical ethics and religious medical ethics are often viewed as opposing, both offer beliefs that may prove harmful to the lives of patients. The case of Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Wons went before the Florida Supreme Court in 1989.3 This case addressed the question of whether a competent adult had the right to refuse a blood transfusion without which she may die. Norma Wons and her husband were practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses. When she was unconscious, the lower circuit court had granted the facility the right to administer the transfusion given the state’s interest in preserving and protecting the lives of her two children. The lower circuit court’s ruling was reversed by the third district court and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, ruling that Mrs. Wons’ constitutional right of freedom of religion and privacy could not be overridden by the state’s interest.
Given our First Amendment rights, laws typically do not restrict what we believe, but they often dictate the way we should behave. The above case follows in a long series of cases that have affirmed that a competent adult may act on a religious belief, even if the outcome is dire and ends in death. But religious freedom is not absolute or unrestricted. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), courts have ruled: “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”4 The constitution grants religious freedom, but the courts rule this is not absolute.
Despite being logically contradictory, moral relativism is alive but far from well in America. The relativist argues that absolute morality is the disease that passes on the dogma of intolerance and uncritical acceptance. Edmund Pellegrino, Chair of the former President’s Council on Bioethics, has depicted the popular distaste for moral absolutists.
Moral absolutes are anathema in secular bioethics and medical ethics today. They are judged invalid, morally bankrupt, and inimical to a culturally diverse society. On this view, they are elitist, undemocratic, authoritarian, and inadaptable to rapid societal change. They stifle human freedom, imprison human beings in their history, and stunt moral creativity.
This litany of the “immorality” of moral absolutes confuses tolerance with uncritical acceptance of the validity of opposing views. It undermines the intellect’s capacity to grasp moral truth and eliminates the need for “foundations” for moral theory and practices. The first principle of ethics, i.e. “do good and avoid evil” is replaced by something much more irenic, i.e. “avoid conflict, get agreement” at any cost except assertion of a negative moral norm.5
As society looses itself from the absolute and embraces relativism, all moral choices, even contradictory ones, become equally valid. Ultimately, patients will pay the price when medicine embraces moral relativism. Contradictory beliefs on physician-assisted suicide illustrate the point. Some physicians legally practicing in Oregon or Washington believe they are acting in your best interest when they prescribe a deadly dose of barbiturate drugs whereby you may end your own life. Most medical organizations disagree and oppose these practices, believing that the beneficent thing to do is to provide good palliative care and avoid the maleficent act of helping a patient kill him or herself. Can both views be right? Should medicine be a tool for self-destruction? Should medicine seek to alleviate suffering or to alleviate the sufferer? Relativism says accept the contradiction; it’s the tolerant thing to do.
If the commitment to relativism is made, all restrictions are loosed. Absolute morals are cast aside. Gone are the solemn commitments to never lie to patients, to never enter into sexual relationships with patients, to always protect the dignity of a patient, and never to kill the innocent patient.5 As Dr. Pellegrino has vividly declared,
Without universal moral norms, there is no “moral compass” to guide the physicians, the patient, the institution, or society. Without them, the patient’s and physician’s power are unbounded. There is no restraining telos [end], no defined good, for the clinical encounter. It becomes what we want it to be.5
There is a better way, a better covenant, a code that transcends the Hippocratic Oath and one that is more rational than relativism. It rests solely in He who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (telos) (Revelation 21:6, 22:13). Medicine is going to believe in something, but it is belief in Him that makes one whole (Luke 8:48). The way, the truth, and the life are exclusive (John 14:6). The moral life begins and ends in the Great Physician, Christ (Matthew 9:12). He will stabilize the moral compass and delineate the moral choices of light and darkness (1 John). He made the ultimate commitment to never abandon us even when we abandon him (Romans 5:8, Hebrews 13:5). May our ailing medical enterprise heal and move forward thriving on the prescriptive power of the Great Physician.
2. Veatch R. The Basics of Bioethics. Second ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003.
3. Furrow B., Greaney T., Johnson S., Jost T., Schwartz R., eds. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. Sixth ed. St. Paul: Thomson-West; 2008.
5. Pellegrino E.D. "Some Things Ought Never Be Done: Moral Absolutes in Clinical Ethics." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2005; 26:469-486.
Posted on 04/13/2010 12:43 PM by Daniel Stearsman, Pharm.D., MABMH
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
"What Prevents Me From Being Baptized?"
Philip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch returning from worshipping God in Jerusalem. The man, likely a Jewish proselyte still observing the Old Law, was reading from the scroll of Isaiah. Philip engaged him in conversation, asking the man if he understood what he was reading. This very important man was humble enough to ask for help, and Philip climbed into the chariot, delved into the text (Isaiah 53), and taught him about Jesus. This led the Ethiopian to ask, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36, NASB. He understood who Jesus was, understood his need, and saw a place where there was sufficient water for him to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven. Perhaps Philip pointed out the fact that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again, and through baptism we reenact those very aspects (cf. Romans 6:1-6). Perhaps Philip discussed the fact that baptism "washes away sins" for believers in Christ who act in obedient faith (cf. Acts 22:16). Whatever Philip preached about Jesus, the eunuch correctly deduced his need to be baptized.
Many people are currently or were formerly in a Bible study with someone, learned their need to be baptized into Christ (cf. Galatians 3:27), but have yet to obey. An untold number of young people are of accountable age and have not been baptized. How many spouses of Christians know they need to do it but have not been baptized? Each individual in the groups above, as well as all others, are of infinite value to God (cf. Matthew 16:26). No doubt, God desires anyone who has yet to come to the knowledge of the truth to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Would He not want those to ask, "What prevents me from being baptized?"
"I'm Not Ready."
Some individuals are not ready. Some are too young to truly know right from wrong; some have not yet been sufficiently taught. However, some are not ready for the commitment, sacrifice, and submission needed to make Jesus Lord. There is no better sacrifice than Jesus. One will never have more time to give to the Lord than right now. God cannot possibly extend more love or grace. If one is not ready, he or she should ask, "What will ready me?"
"I'm Afraid."
Fear is understandable. Jesus apparently experienced it (cf. Hebrews 5:7; Luke 22:42). Paul experienced fear (Colossians 4:4); Peter certainly grappled with it (cf. Matthew 26:69-74; 1 Peter 3:14-15). One might fear the change that follows becoming a Christian, failure in his Christian walk, or the reaction and even the rejection of others. Jesus once taught, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). People must evaluate those fears and ask they are worth risking the more fearful prospect of standing before the Lord without His blood covering their sins.
"I'm Not Sure."
Peter unquestionably says, "Make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10, ASV). However, he is not giving people an excuse to put off obeying Christ. Remember, he is speaking to those already purified from their former sins (1:9)—those already baptized. One needs to reason through Scripture (cf. Isaiah 1:18). Paul reasoned with individuals about Christ on many occasions (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 24:25). The fact is the Biblical claims about who Jesus is and how one receives the benefits of His grace are most reasonable. Rationalization, hard-heartedness, and self-will may be seeds that grow into weeds of doubt, but one must not allow doubt to prevent him from submitting to Christ.
"I Don't Believe."
One may or may not say those specific words. Yet, when one sees the truth of Scripture, knows the personal accountability demanded, and does nothing about it, that person essentially does not believe. At least, his faith is insufficient to properly respond to God's amazing grace. This is a hard truth to confront in ourselves. I see it; I know it; but I will not act upon it. The Hebrews writer says the Israelites could not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19), and he warns us against imitating them (Hebrews 3:12ff). Even the demons believe and tremble, though it does them no good (cf. James 2:19). We must believe and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16).
Perhaps you are one who could ask yourself, "What prevents me from being baptized?” Cast a long mental gaze at the cross of Calvary and comprehend the love and sacrifice evidenced there. It was for you (cf. Galatians 2:20). God's love for you is personal. He wants nothing more than for you to live with Him eternally, and He has told you how to do that (cf. Acts 2:38). What prevents you from being baptized? Posted on 04/13/2010 2:00 PM by Neal Pollard
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
The Making of Warriors
“Praise the Lord! Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who delights greatly in His commandments. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; the generation of the upright will be blessed” (Psa.112:1-2).
The descendants of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards included 13 college presidents, 65 professors, 100 lawyers, 30 judges, 66 doctors, three United States senators, three mayors of large cities, three state governors, a vice-president, and over 100 missionaries. While I do not agree with Jonathan Edward’s political or doctrinal views during the Great Awakening, consider how Psalm 112:1-2 played out in his descendants.
Going back to the Old Testament we see how God dealt with patriarchs of families. He made a covenant with Abraham and then brought it to fruition through Abraham’s descendants. Because of Abraham’s faithfulness to God, salvation was made possible to all mankind. Noah’s family was saved not because of what they did, but because of Noah’s faithfulness to God’s commandment in building the ark before the worldwide flood. During the period of the judges of Israel, the descendants were mighty and blessed because their forefathers had feared the Lord and walked in His ways.
When there is no direction given to people they do not know how to behave (Prov. 29:18). We see this easily with children who do not have parents to guide and disciple them, but the principle applies to other aspects of the family. For example, when a family does not have a husband and father to lead who seeks God’s guidance, that family will typically not have Biblically based goals to strive for. The family’s spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental lives are subsequently misguided. It’s hard for any family--or organization for that matter--to rise above its leader.
As Christians and the church, our guide is God, God’s word and the eldership. As a Biblical family, the guide should be the father or husband as he portrays Christ in his life. Paul wrote, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (I Cor. 11:3).The regard for husbands and fathers as spiritual leaders is a far cry from how men are seen today. Men are portrayed by many in Hollywood and the media as passive, oblivious, lackadaisical, cowardly, thoughtless, irresponsible, visionless, and spineless. It is these types of men that feminists love because they don’t put up a fight for what they believe in and have an “anything goes” attitude in order to “stay out of the doghouse.” Men who have godly convictions and truly lead their families are seen as stubborn, ultraconservative, self-serving, and even chauvinistic by feminized men.
How many of us as newlywed husbands had a direction that we believed God wanted to take our families? How many of us thought about how God was going to use our families in the church? How many of us as new fathers had any inkling of an idea about what it meant to “Bring your children up in the training and admonition of the Lord”? (Ephesians 6:4). Did any of us sit down with our Bible in one hand and our wife’s hand in the other while praying that God would give our family direction? Sadly, many Christian men cannot answer these questions positively. I know that I cannot.
So for this month’s article on roles and responsibilities, I have a question for husbands, fathers, and fathers-to-be as I ask myself the same question. What is the direction God wants us to follow as we lead our families? What should our goals and attitudes be for our families, and how are we as servant leaders going to see to it that they are going to be met at home? We are stewards of the most precious creations on earth—our wives and children. How are we handling that stewardship?
As families, we are to praise the Lord in everything we do. All that we do should ultimately bring glory, honor, and praise to Him. Those of us who are fathers and husbands must ask for God’s guidance for our families as we lead them in the ultimate goal of mankind, which is to, “Fear God and keep His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
Every father wants his children to succeed, not just in their physical lives, but more importantly in their spiritual lives. For this to happen, we fathers have to turn our hearts, minds, and souls to God (Matt. 22:37), while at the same time turning our hearts toward home (Malachi 4:6). We must keep our eyes on the goal that our descendants will be mighty warriors for God on the earth and be blessed. Posted on 04/13/2010 2:09 PM by David W. Longley, D.O.
|
