CRISES

NO EVANGELIZING, NO U.S.A.

This is not one of those "stop sinning or God will destroy us" cries.  Rather (with me wearing both my 'economist' and 'poverty-expert' hats) it outlines the downward national path resulting from long-term disobedience to certain of God's commands.  Actually, no supernatural judgement at all is needed to hurry along the process of decline.  We can manage to keep rushing it along all by ourselves, with no need for additional pushing whatsoever from God, thank you very much.

The gist of the argument is: that some of our sins will destroy the nation, in easily foreseeable ways.  That is, unless we turn away from those particular sins. That we shall need God's supernatural help to achieve such difficult turns.  That such help cannot come without our becoming good disciples.  That discipleship is not possible without the new birth, followed by the resulting indwelling of God's Holy Spirit.  And that being born anew, by enough people and soon enough to turn the tide of decline, calls for an awful lot of good, effective evangelism.  Very soon. 

That's it.  The chain of reasoning is a little long - around 6 steps - but pretty simple. 

OK.  But - what downward national path?  You hadn't noticed?  Well, the one easily shown by good, clear statistics plus innumerable scholarly studies over the last couple of decades.  That one.  The one which can be previewed by viewing Europe today, since they have "progressed" down a similar path further than we have.  (But Europe can wait until my next post.)

The period 1960-2005 could be described as our "National Time of Trouble."  Other periods could also be so described.  But this one is of that most dangerous kind that could lead to prolonged national suicide.  Only once before, when we faced the slavery issue, were we also in a situation where we had to change ourselves or continue on a path that could lead to national self-destruction.  We changed, but with a cost of half a million deaths.  Changing ourselves this time, fortunately, should not be costly in terms of deaths.  But it is, and will continue to be, costly to many of us.

Where are we headed?  Toward a steep, continuing loss of national income and wealth.  Such losses would weaken our military, and our ability to defend against attackers and invaders, such as the aggressively expansionist Islamofacists already pushing for a new Caliphate, already talking of territory now belonging to Europe and others.

Toward a greatly destabilized world, if the U.S. loses its prosperity-based military ability to police the world's worst-case threats.  There is no conceivable replacement for the U.S. protective role in the world.  Absent a strong U.S., situations would deteriorate rapidly world-wide, greatly affecting economies, globalization, the defense of nations, and everything else.

Why would we have such a loss of national income and wealth?  Succinctly, because we have had too few births for the last 30 years.  What difference does that make?  Again, a good look at Europe would help explain.

First, we can no longer avoid the fact that all retirement plans - including Social Security as well as other pension plans - will fail unless the oncoming generation is at least as big as the retiring one.  That is, the retiring generation must at least have replaced itself if it hopes to have retirement income.  If not, there will be too few workers per retiree to support the retirees.

The size of that replacement generation is an immovable limit on the size incomes retired people can have.  The bigger the replacement generation, the more retirement income is possible; the smaller, the less is possible. 

When the replacement generation is smaller than the retiring generation, as it is now (though less so than in Europe), all kinds of problems and instability can be expected.  The replacement generation will carry an incredible tax burden to support the oldsters.  They well might rebell.  What would happen to the retired generation then?  Perhaps more important, what would it do to the replacement generation to come to that point?  When they might have to choose between supporting the oldsters or their own youngsters?  What would such choices mean to them?  Or do to them?  And to civilization itself?

But the problem of supporting dependent oldsters is only a facet of the main problem: a shrinking population.  This is about much more than Social Security or "What to do about Granny."  A steadily shrinking population also means too few workers even to support "everything as it is now."  Even to continue our current prosperity or eventually, anything close to it.  That can only spell decline, for the nation and individuals.  Historically, no nation can long survive a continuous decline in population.

Now to look at the causes of future national decline.  First, why did we have too few births?  In one word, abortion.[1]  The number aborted in the U.S. over the past 30 years would be around 40 million, almost the exact number needed to provide population growth at an at-least replacement level.  (The U.S. population grew almost entirely through immigration during this time, with a national birth rate below the replacement rate.) 

Next, why so many abortions?  in two words, the "Sexual Revolution."  Starting in the 1960s, the push toward "free sex" or sex outside of marriage, changed age-old practices.  The sudden, enormous increase in unmarried sex caused a huge increase in illegitimate births, which soared from just 5% in 1960 to 33% in 2000.  Unmarried sex was also the proximate cause of most abortions, since the great majority of abortions have been to unmarried women.

So it is beyond obvious that the Sexual Revolution is the proximate cause of our very dangerous future national decline.  More immediately, it is also the cause of our present national decline.  What present national decline?

Just this.  The Sexual Revolution has also caused an epidemic of fatherless children.  And why does that even matter?  Because we now know - a little late - that fatherlessness is the major predictor of most poverty, since most of the poor are unmarried mothers and their children.  Fatherlessness is also the major predictor of most violent crime, since 70% of the most violent young offenders are fatherless.[2]  This helps explain the more than 300% explosion in crime rates since 1960. 

The Sexual Revolution is also responsible for soaring divorce rates and the almost-matching teen suicide rates.  Also for the well-documented child pathologies of every kind which are suffered by fatherless children, at rates several times higher than those of children from two-parent families.  For the growing replacement of marriage by cohabitation.  And on and on.

What could alter such national sexual habits which have run for over 40 years?  Especially in an area as powerful and contentious as sex?  Only Christ.  God did not bring us to this brink.  We took care of that ourselves.  But only God, through Christ, can help people make the enormously difficult changes needed to bring us back.  Such changes cannot be dictated or legislated.  They can come only person by person.

These kinds of profound behaviorial changes, on a nation-wide scale, can come only through conversion, followed by a life-long struggle to be obedient to God's commands - what we call discipleship.

We are used to thinking of evangelism as needed for the eternal salvation of souls.  We must also recognize an additional powerful motive for evangelism.  It is the only thing possible that can also save nations and civilizations in decline.  It alone can avoid a resurgence of barbarism and darkness, on this earth and in our lifetimes.  And it alone can bring this nation through its present "time of troubles."  Nothing else - not even the highest of high tech and human genius - can possibly do it.

As never before, we need to evangelize.  And to make haste.

____

[1] Beware the misleading term "fertility rates" when viewing statistics on population growth or decline.  They have nothing to do with fertility.  They do not measure fertility (the number of conceptions per unit of population), but only the number of births.  For example, babies conceived but aborted would not be counted at all.  Conception rates (fertility) are not what is being measured.

[2] Fatherlessness (or absent or rejecting fathers, as well as over-binding mothers) is also a factor found in the lives of most male homosexuals (though most psychologists stopped talking about such things years ago.) 

See Hatterer, Lawrence J., M.D., Changing Homosexuality in the Male: Treatment for Men Troubled by Homosexuality, 1970, McGraw-Hill, p. 61.

Also, Masters and Johnson, Sex and Human Loving, 1982, Little, Brown & Co., pp. 351-352.

Also, Vitz, Paul C., Professor Emeritus of Psychology, NY University, "Family Decline: The Findings of Social Science, Part I," under "The Importance of Fathers," in Defending the Family: A Sourcebook, 1-23, Steubenville, OH: The Catholic Social Science Press, 1998, also at http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0002.html.

Sexual Preferences and Christian Living

The final ruling upholding the defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud has come.  She is no longer allowed to be a minister of the United Methodist Church.  The controversy began about a year ago when she announced, to the church where she was serving as an associate pastor, that she was living in a committed homosexual relationship with another woman. 

Since the decision ending the case, however, the surrounding controversy has not cooled and is still raging, not only in the UMC but also in the blogosphere.  (See Shane Raynor’s excellent blog at www.wesleyblog.com for good background on this story.  Glance at the comments on his articles too, for an idea of the general debate.)

What about this issue?  Should openly practicing homosexuals be ordained in the UMC?  May they sometimes be excluded even from membership?  (The UMC also just upheld the right of a pastor, Ed Johnson, to deny membership in his church to an openly gay man.)

The arguments of the pro-gay side seem to focus on the harm done them by any exclusion or criticism and how much they suffer as a result.  They argue that such discrimination goes against important parts of scripture and the teachings of Christ and the church.  They also argue that any inclusion of gays in the church that falls short of full ordination, and of full assurance to gays that their lifestyle is fully Biblical, normal and accepted, is hateful and must be rejected as amounting to no acceptance at all, and no love at all.

The opposing arguments come mostly from those who believe scripture is true and is inspired by God.  They point out that everywhere homosexuality is mentioned in scripture, it is strongly condemned, even called an “abomination” in places.  They believe scripture leaves no room whatsoever for accepting homosexual practice. 

Most of these, however, also argue for loving homosexuals (“loving the sinner but not the sin.”)  They also admit we are all sinners, and that there are many scriptural sins – even those designated as “abominations” – besides homosexuality.

At base, the argument about homosexuality is an argument about the scriptures.  Are they true?  Are they the word of God?  The standard beside which all other claims are to be judged?  Or are they only partly true, only possibly the word of God and may we appeal to other, more current standards when scripture seems too harsh?

My response is two-fold.  First, homosexuals are not the only ones called upon by scripture not to do what they desire to do sexually.  Homosexuality – sex between persons of the same gender - is not the only sexual practice forbidden in scripture.  Other forbidden sexual practices include all fornication (sex outside marriage), all adultery (sex with anyone other than one’s spouse), sex between various relatives, sex with animals, sex with dead people and rape – which is sex imposed on someone who is unwilling.

The gay camp will speedily cry that this is an attempt to equate homosexuals with those who practice any of the above.  But no equality or similarity between any of the above is suggested in scripture, except the equality of being forbidden sins. 

Does the fact that someone has an exclusive sexual preference for any of these scripturally forbidden practices make a difference?  Does that provide an excuse, an exclusion from being wrong, when they follow such preferences into the practice of them?

The scriptural answer is that we are to refrain from any such practices, regardless of what our desires might be.  What if that means that we then have no sex lives at all?  Currently, that would be thought of as an unacceptable, impossible standard.  But we expect it every day.

If someone’s sexual preference is for rape, for instance, we expect them to deny themselves what they desire.  If their only alternative choice is to have no sex at all, we still expect them to deny themselves what they desire, notwithstanding.

If someone wants to be married, for instance, but does not find anyone to marry, must they then live without having sex with anyone?  The scripture says so. 

Is living without sexual relations acceptable?  Probably a majority would not think so.  Yet there are many who do so in fact, whether or not by choice.  Are their lives always twisted as a result?  Can celibacy ever be healthy, mentally, emotionally or physically?  Some of us have known celibate people who have been remarkably healthy, mentally, emotionally and physically, so it must be possible.

But are these even the right questions?  If God commands something, are those of us who belong to him not expected to do it, whatever we think about it?  In fact, we are, whether we think it will make us happy or not.

All this brings us bang up against the paradox of the Christian life.  Christ said we must “lose our lives to save them.”  We are to obey God, even at the cost of torture or death.  Yet it is also true that doing what we want instead of what God wants, in pursuit of our own happiness, does not make us happy – at least, not for long.  And also true that doing what God wants, even against our own desires, sexual or otherwise, is the only way to real contentment in this life.

Practicing homosexuals make a basic mistake.  They suffer, and blame it on any lack of acceptance by other people.  Other people see their suffering, have pity on them, and try to comfort them by accepting them.  But their happiness does not really depend on other people, or on being accepted by other people.  It depends upon God.  Ultimately, it depends on God alone.

It is not possible to be truly, lastingly happy or contented apart from God and doing God’s will.  Making the attempt only prolongs our suffering.  As C.S. Lewis said, when we finally surrender our will to God’s will, it is “as if a bone had been set in the universe.”  Things finally begin to fit together as they were designed to fit.  Healing from spiritual suffering (which is the most awful of all kinds) begins.  We find strength to do what we once thought impossible, not to mention repulsive.  And we find the contentment that comes only from living inside the will of God, to the best of our ability.

What is needed is not to focus so much on trying to soften the emotional suffering of a group of people, but to stick to the basic plan: point them to the one and only way out of their sufferings.  It does not lie in trying to change or counter the commandments of God.  Rather, it lies in ending our rebellion against them, laying down the flag and handing over the sword. The unexpected, beyond-belief result of such surrender to God is always profound contentment, far above and beyond anything we gave up. 

God is faithful.  We can count on that.   Anyplace inside his will is better than anyplace outside it, no matter how terrible it may seem at first; and anyplace outside his will is worse than anyplace inside it, no matter how attractive it may seem at first.  We can count on that too.  That is how he designed us, how we fit into the universe he made.

Disciples Don't Cohabit

Cohabitation is almost as common as marriage now.  In fact, it is hard to remember a marriage I performed in recent years where the couple was not already living together. 

Cohabitation makes sense to a lot of young couples.  Many, perhaps most, have seen their parents divorce.  Some consider it a "trial marriage," hoping to avoid divorce by not marrying if they turn out to be incompatible.  Furthermore, "everybody is doing it," which seems to argue that it must be OK.  Besides, postponing all sex until marriage, when sex drives are strong for years before the age when most marry, does not seem to make sense.  Is it even normal?  Why should people deny themselves something as natural as sex?  If "no one gets hurt," or if both are consenting, so that if someone does get hurt, they have already agreed to take that risk, then what is the problem?

If anything is wrong with sex outside of marriage, is it only because it goes against Christian teachings?  Except for that, doesn't it make sense?  In other words, outside of religion, are there any good reasons not to cohabit?  Actually, there are.

First, the personal happiness and well-being of cohabiting couples are statistically at higher risk than that of married people. 

Couples who cohabit, then marry, are 50% more likely to divorce than couples who did not cohabit before marrying! [1]   The opposite of what might be expected, but well documented and true. 

Also, 40% of couples who cohabit do not eventually marry each other.  That might seem to avoid the grief of divorce.  But the fact is that when they break up, they still go through all the pain of divorce, just as if they had formally married.  They only avoid the form of divorce, not the disaster part.  (And with 'palimony,' they may not even avoid the financial costs of divorce!)

The rates of physical partner abuse are over 6000% (62 times) greater in cohabitation than in marriage.  The rates of physical and sexual abuse of children are also much higher than in marriage.  Cohabiting couples are less healthy and have shorter lives than married couples.  They are less prosperous, as a group.  And - unkindest of all - both male and female partners report being less happy, and - having less sex, even less-satisfying sex - than married couples do!  So the search for better and more sex - the elephant in the room in all this argument - fares worse in unmarried sex than in married sex!

On the basis of our purely personal gratification, then, unmarried sex scores far below married sex.  On a purely objective, well-documented basis,  ignoring any religious reasons to wait for sex until marriage, the disadvantages of cohabitation are far greater than any advantages.

Why would this be?  One factor is the element of trust.  How can there a truly satisfying relationship when both know that either might leave at any time for any reason?  How can there be any depth in the relationship without trust?  And how can there be trust without commitment?  Statistically, only marriage brings the level of commitment needed for a happier relationship.

Second, wide-spread unmarried sex ruins countries.

Anyone who claims to care for their country, for the poor or about children, and who also has unmarried sex, is actively harming, not helping, all of these.  That is because It turns out that unmarried sex by a large part of the population is one of the most disasterous things that can happen to a country.  Why is that?  And how do we know?

Because we now know that fatherlessness is the motor driving most poverty and most violent crime.  Because fatherlessness has increased from 5% of all births in 1960 to 33% in 2000.  And because unmarried sex, since the "Sexual Revolution" of the 1960s, has been the motor driving fatherlessness.  (Leaving aside that unmarried sex is also the proximate cause of most abortions.)

How do we know?  Fatherlessness is the major predictor of poverty, since most of the poor are never-married mothers and their children.  Fatherlessness has also become the major predictor of violent crime, as 70% of the most violent young offenders in prison are fatherless.

And these are just the secular, non-religious reasons for postponing sex until marriage.  What are the religious reasons for denying sex to ourselves until we marry? 

The Bible is clear that there is to be no sex outside marriage.  That if two single people have sex, they must marry.  These strictures may be a major reason for the drive to prove the Bible is not true, or at least, not totally true!  But there is no question that this is the standard shown by the plain sense of the scripture.

And who is a disciple?  The one who is trying hard to obey Christ.  Can disciples then have sex outside marriage?  Or cohabit instead of marrying?  Only if they repent and change their ways.

In short, the choice is to be a disciple or to cohabit (or continue to cohabit.)  But doing both at the same time is not possible.  Cohabiting Christians who also want to follow Christ need to understand, rethink and obey him.  He is the Lord of the sexual part of our lives as well as the rest. 

And obeying these commands is not as bad as it seems at first.  It will actually work out better.  Even when what God wants seems to be bad for us, we can trust that it is the only way that will work out well.  It is all part of trusting him, not only with our eternal souls, but with having the best possible life here on this earth as well. 

___________

[1]  For this and all other statistical documentation, please see the footnotes for Chapter 6, "Sex and Poverty" of "Up and Out: A Guide to True Compassion for the Poor", (under "Categories") either at www.gerrycharlottephelps.com or www.upandout.us.

[2] For cohabiting couples who repent and want to marry, most I have known wanted to wait to marry until they could have the big wedding they had dreamed about.  And while most decided to continue living together, determined to postpone any further sex until then, they found that did not work. 

One solution that worked for such repentant, cohabiting couples was a quiet, "private" wedding first, with just them, the pastor, whatever number of witnesses were legally required, and a properly executed wedding license.  That way, they continued to live together, married in the eyes of God and of the state, but "secretly" so far as others were concerned, until the big, public wedding of their dreams.  Not ideal, but it helped some of them achieve the obedience to Christ that they had chosen.  (There were many such "secret" weddings, or "elopements," for various reasons, as late as the 1940s.)

Some of the problems:  First, giving a bad witness to others, especially young people, by appearing to live together without being married, and thereby supporting the practice of cohabitation, even though actually married.  Second, fooling all those friends and family members into thinking the big wedding later was the real one.