ucmpage.gif (9365 bytes)


Mores of Cultural Breakdown and Moral Declivity

by Wayne Mayfield

In our tendency to classify, dissect, and apply clichťs to our modern understanding; in a world that has more sciences than all the nations and their states combined world wide; in a classic setting of removed motives and achievements in the educational and vocational environments from which we live and move, we seem to lose a handle on the most simple and direct understanding of the world around us. We seem to create in everything a form of secularism and isolation while packaging the lump as a jumbled and yet distinctly cohesive social order, despite the fact these two can not intertwine successively (it would be like saying sanity and insanity are compatible), for we have sold ourselves to a vision that is not comprehensively real and seems to be a science fiction novel of bizarre wishful thinking as to cultural and humanitarian principles. We choose this over hurting the feeling of those who might have cause to hurt. Donít we all!

We are taught by the principles of Hermeneutics that there are three pertinent issues in interpretation of the Bible as it applies to man. While not fully set in stone, for we still see through the glass of the past darkly, history at least affords us distinct pictures of cultures, their language, and their beliefs for us to scientifically (rationally) institute for our understanding today. Yet, it is here we are failing when we apply overview to the totality of the human race, itís distinctions, and most commonly, its similarities.

While I admired Albert Mohlerís piece, Two Competing Religions -- The Legacy of the 1960ís, in that he admirably defined a culture shift with alacrity, there is yet an evasive issue still un-addressed which I will deal with later. The legacy of the founding fathers of America had one prime concern when dealing with the peoples of this nation; correctness. At first a confederate, later a republic; the confederate ideal was a failure because it was somewhat lacking a specific in the freedoms of all individuals.[1] The definition we achieved in becoming a republic was far more inclusive as to things like "one voice, one vote," and establishing the realm of religious freedoms that were lacking all over the world at the time of our constitution.

Yet, never did they relinquish the authority and benevolence of founding truths concerning our origins and our religious rights. Never did that include lewd, un-natural, and invasive (violent) activities. Correctness meant not social normal, or political need, but instead a standard adhered to for the good of all in generations to come. Social need was secondary in respect to the correctness towards all while being acceptable to the any one person as long as there was no social upheaval (like the Civil War) to terrorize the good of the whole or the American foundation of correctness.

These learned men, who were historians, knew the trends of social orders better than we give them credit for, and were forewarned the times we live in today. Any five of the writers of the constitution could give cultural and historical lectures to us today. I wonder if they would compare the social mores we are purporting in lifestyle being historically normal as to the condition of man as a whole. I will address this later also.

Mohler looks at Kurtzís essay and does find the one adverse parallel in that how can you fail and succeed at the same time. Half is still failure, though liberalism as it was from 1930 to the mid 50ís was nothing as we know it today. Then, the Democratic Party was the conservative, not the Republican. And even compared to the Democratic Party of recent times the author and leading constituent of Democratic liberalism became much too conservative for even the Democratic Party. Iím speaking of course of Barry Goldwater. This was not taken into account in the concept of the piece by Kurtz. It is of equal impart and impact.

This just shows me that political correctness is not always correct in the same way the constitution and the founders saw it. Social correctness wasnít correct either in those same eyes as we seem to have it in todayís liberal groups. For example, killing unborn babies would never have been found "correct." Any liberal who states this as a fact needs to go back and read the right to life essays and arguments that made the Salaam debacles extremely unacceptable because they knew children, by correct understanding, were innocent until the age of accountability. Do not be fooled, a lot of young girls were killed. Even the most conservative court today has a hard time in the capital punishment realm concerning what is an age where a person is culpable.

Historically, the founders also knew that aberrant sexual lifestyles not only were incorrect according to sound observation, but also it was at the center of the decline of every culture that fell as a nation of power. Greece had the belief it was a fathers right to have his daughter as a sexual opportunity and slaves were to be dealt out for their sexual gifts to those the masters so deemed. Rome found no problem with brothers and sisters having intercourse, it was considered the common of the day. Both cultures had same sex practices that mingled with their politics and eventually perverted their nations ability to remain coherent and cognizant while facing their decline. Each of the cultures failed from their sexual and political blood mingling that bogged down the simplest functions of state.

It wasnít just these two nations, either. All countries have had to deal with these issues in one way or another. It is believed by most historians, I think, that during the time before Cromwell brought moral repair to England, incest, rape, animal sex, and abuse of children was very common. If Cromwell had not brought reform to England, I shudder to think what state it would have wound up in. Was it not the Bible that became the standard for them at that time?

Consider France during the purging. Young girls were taken to beheadings more than boys or men. Why? They were sexually free game till the blood thirst out weighed the sexual hunger. Of this, it was a serious mental torture to be a child/woman at that time. Marat found their deaths exciting and virally enticing. We are aware he had syphilis with a seriously marred face and insanity. France was considered, at that time, the sexual pleasure palace of the world.

All this then brings me to a thought which we gloss over. And it is in this thought I choose to glean before going any further. The thought that comes is if sin is a vice, or abhorrent lifestyle that we keep doing over and over again hoping for different results, all the while we keep discovering that which our forefathers could not have considered lightly as to the end result; when do we leave rhetoric and return to a cohesive and comprehensible reality? While we know we can not police sexual morality between adults, we can refuse to surrender our nation and generations to come to their power. No law can make right what is wrong. [2] Some rights will always be at risk in any group that can not accept that true correctness extends to the good of future generations as much as ours.

Patrick Fagan did a piece, A Culture of Inverted Sexuality, and he too saw that in 1930 the pendulum of change was moving in the church itself, not just in our national identity politically. In part, he attributed contraceptives as the avenue for redefined sexuality in America. My slant is that it became more open, not more alive, as it were, in itís definition. While disorder (abhorrent sexual activities against our prime cause to procreate) has always been with us, it was left hidden in most of cultural America. Novels of that time were about secret lovers, sexual exploration, and hinted at the deprived human who could have so much more if they were free sexually. Many of these books were banned, yet today we have groups who hail the authors as visionaries. It takes no visionary to conclude the depravity of the human creature in his most base nature. And history tells us it is the real common of mankind, though not most beneficial.

The psychoanalytic description for sexual inversion Fagan uses is the same form we use for drug addicts. They too are trying to contain their deeper anxieties, have their own culture, and they are a deterrent to our future generations in America. They are a social order we are reckoning with also in proportions unbelievable. I do not believe the issue is about contraceptive revolution, but instead one that is about creating the easier and softer way to not address the real issues of each of us concerning our emotion issues verses our moral inclination to true correctness, or more boldly, right-ness.

I was, though, encouraged by the quote of Teddy Roosevelt that "birth control is the one sin for which the penalty is national death, [human] race death; a sin for which there is no atonement." If one were to look at the whole of his discussion on this, he is speaking of a lifestyle that would eventually erode at the fabric of the social order in removing our awareness of correct and providential conduct as a people. It would be a door through which we would plunder our identity as a moral, correct (righteous) peoples. National unity would no longer be for the greater good, but the good of one against the whole, even unto generations. I donít see he missed the boat by much!

It has been known for the whole of my lifetime that sexual exploration and freedom were a link of the new social order. The concept of this has been around since the dawning of the human race. Itís just not a new issue. Trying find political cause, judicial justification, and acceptance of the right to surrender future generations to this cause sends me back to the Platonic writing where Socrates is teaching the nature of love, even condoning men having sex with young boys. There is a group out there trying to get a "child love" rights, for those who donít know. Itís mostly same sex unions. Is that to be next in our surrender leading us further into the abysmal decline of our national good?

In Daphnis and Cleo, an ancient writing of the Greeks, a novel that for so long was every childís reading in school, these issues come to our eyes as a part of education (intellectualism) leading the way to a cultural failure. The book was about sexual discovery. It was built on so rapidly that historical time seems to explode. The fall of Greece; pleasure and politics sleeping in the same bed. The pleasure equated to sexual lifestyles accepted though not good for the whole of generations to come or the survival of Greece. Schools of modern higher learning hail this as the time of mans intellectual revolution to freedom. Why then did it fail? Poor political decisions born of unsound reason and practices. Moral decline has a price!

The Symposium of Human Understanding in 1948 began a real decline for us in many ways. At issue were things like mass manipulation through media, breaking the yoke of religion, and establishing moral agendas through education. All of these are presently at work to keep the liberal agenda of correctness over riding the moral correctness of a nation to the good of generations to come.

One last thought. Think not like the Greeks, Romans, and French Libertarians that "modern man" has finally reached a zenith where we can escape inevitable consequences because of our intellectual prowess. Do not romanticize in a world of flightier fancy you can out manipulate the inevitable consequence of placing truth in the subjective hands of a belief we suspend laws of nature by passively stroking our ego of self delusions we are greater than we are. No law surrendered goes unanswered, and no law or reason or man can bow the knee of evidential truth and wisdom.

All around us the earth has begun to rebel against humanity and we are ever close to a judgment we do not want for our children and grandchildren. It is not just a social issue any more, it is a cosmic issue that cries out to God against us. The social issues of our immorality and insensitivity to future generations are but bells tolling the times before us. Better to be heavenly, morally correct than stupidly correct socially and politically. History is against us right now. Seems to me the time to heed righteousness, the true correctness for our nation and generations to come, is upon us like a thief. The question, will we listen?

[1] The confederacy was for the prominent to remain in power, whether they be economically superior or intellectually superior, or even numbers superior. There would always be a line between two groups that had not one thing to do with correctness. It was all about control. The humanist of our present age have taken the confederate ideal and by using "social issues" created a false correctness (appearing to judicially, not morally, be correct) lumping odd bedfellows into a jumbled group that has but one cohesion; no moral accountability. They multiplied the numbers of "special groupsí to confuse a really simple issue; national and individual correctness for not just now, but generations to come.

[2] I do not want it to be construed that I am saying they lose voting power, nor a voice of national concern as to war or threatening issues that we face constantly as a nation any more than I would assume one denomination be suspended for their place as an institution of Americans.

Copyright Protected: Wayne Mayfield, Pastor, Godseed Project, Inc.

Click here to email this page to a friend.


<Back to News