GrahamWatson’s Yahoo Sports article on Matt Millen[1] quoted a significant question from the former Penn State linebacker. The question had to do with reports of criminal behavior toward children. I wish it had been featured in the headline. It demands more than a passing nod. After saying, “Man’s inhumanity towards man is just mind-boggling,” Mr. Millen asked:
Where do we stop with this stuff?
Forgive me for sounding retro here, but the answer to that question begins with looking back toward the origins of “this stuff.” That backward glance, I argue, will take us to at least three sacred shrines of our culture.
First, there is the shrine of pragmatism. From the time of scientific discovery, through the era of industrialization and into the era of high definition technology we have discovered many things within our power. The problem is that we have not had an ethical foundation for using that power. Thus, if we can do something, we assume that it ought to be done. This has been especially true in the dark world of recreational sexuality. With no moral standard to guide us, and with sexual relationships reduced to an entertainment category, we are left to the judicial nonsense of “victimless crimes” and an ever-widening circle of deviant choices which can be included in them. Accepting the notion that “sexual activity” is inevitable for younger and younger children, we have focused pragmatically on preventing consequences while ignoring the moral fact that we are setting kids up as targets.
The second shrine is free speech. Within this pragmatic mindset we have developed the capacity to produce and disseminate literature and visual media of the most lurid kind. Of course, with tongue in cheek, we agreed that this fare was for “adults.” The theory, I suppose, was that adults could handle the “mature” subject matter. It should be remembered that these crimes at Penn State were not perpetrated by children. They were forced on children by an adult who lived in a culture which gives him no rest from opportunities to incubate and hatch erotic passions. I do not say that in any way to justify his crimes. Rather, I seek to expose the paradox of “free speech” and “outrage.” One or the other has to give way and I am fearful that it is the outrage which will ultimately be muted. This kind of free speech is cancerous and I predict it will be the mantra of the next wave of legalized criminality – pedophilia.
Finally, there is the shrine of dehumanization. We might argue that we worship at no such shrine; but, in fact, we build our lives around it and justify our pragmatic choices because of it. For several decades our culture has lived to the drumbeat of materialistic animalism. The human race, it is implied from documentaries to park tours, is simply one of several animal categories which came into being by the accidental interaction of lifeless stuff. The track record of Darwin’s study of origins has been both racist and dehumanizing. The message of materialistic animalism is clear – strong trumps weak and there is no external value system other than force to set limits on the strong. The word “human” is surfacing often in the post Penn State debates. Few understand that the twenty-first century mind has no clearly stated standard of human behavior. Something inside us understands that the picture of the bully or seductive coach and the vulnerable child is wrong, but we do not really understand why.
In my own analysis of the eras of the last two thousand years, I pin the beginning of our time in history at 1972. Much led up to that date; but it was then that human life within a womb was judicially reduced to “fetal tissue” which could be destroyed. I do not call this new epoch “post-modern.” I call it “post-human.” Thus, the significance of Mr. Millen’s statement: “Man’s inhumanity towards man is just mind-boggling.” Actually, it’s not mind boggling at all. It was predictable. What is mind-boggling (and hopeful) is that there are still people out there who think such actions ARE inhumane and mind-boggling. Unfortunately, the actions of this coach will cast doubts on groups authentically trying to help children. This could leave at risk children without bona fide mentors and could send them to the streets where criminal bullies will have even more access with even less control.[2]
Let us who are in the Christian community consider Mr. Millen’s question and perhaps consider it with the emotion which he demonstrated in asking it. “Where do we stop with this stuff?” Should not Mr. Millen’s question become a part of the vision statement of every church and every para-church organization? Does not the gospel link up with Jesus’ references to embracing the fatherless and the harassed?
Permit me to give a bit more specificity to Mr. Millen’s question. Here are seven questions which come to my mind. Might you have some others to suggest as seed thoughts for serious ministry exploration.
1. What are the actual circumstances of at risk children in our culture? We should be street-wise. Too many dismiss them with clichés far removed from fact.
2. What are the courses of action for extending genuine non-patronizing care for children? Not all children need to become foster kids or be adopted, although there are a good many who sincerely wish they had a home.
3. What are the foot-in-the-door weakness of an organization which could permit someone to misuse children in the name of helping them? Does anyone remember where I read that some of these molesters have actually talked themselves into thinking they are doing their victim a favor?
4. How can walls be set up not only against predatory adults but also against predatory children? These are youngsters who have developed a carnal sophistication which has morphed into becoming recruiters for evil.
5. How can proper boundaries be set which allow for flexibility and safety?
6. How can present programs become more child friendly in terms of actually giving them more life related experience beyond parties and classes?
7. How can we investigate other organizations which provide services we cannot offer but which might be or become a haven for molesters? No one organization can meet every need. We need to know where to send distressed children or their parents for help which is beyond our scope.
0 comments:
Post a Comment