Articles
Moral Degeneration
The slope of sin is slippery indeed. Once we step onto its slick surface, we begin a downward slide that quickly picks up momentum. The further we go, the harder it is to stop.
For example, a recent video shows a man interviewing passersby about incest. They are first asked how they feel about two homosexuals being married. All confidently affirm that such is acceptable and anyone who would oppose it is a narrow-minded bigot. Then the second question: “How do you feel about siblings being romantically involved?” While some expressed personal aversion to it, when pressed all said basically the same thing: “If it isn’t hurting anybody, then it should be allowed. It’s not my place to judge others.”
Note first the logical dilemma. When an objective moral standard is rejected, there is no place to draw a line against subjectivity. The people interviewed had already been conditioned by pro-homosexual arguments and thus could not logically say that incest was wrong. All the reasoning that persuaded them to accept one repulsive behavior (homosexuality) opened the door to another (incest). The degenerating effects of subjectivity are amply documented in Judges when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25).
Second, the “as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” rationale seems to be the only consideration for many as they grapple with moral decisions. But this raises a host of questions: What is the definition of hurt? Who decides when someone is hurt? In a recent article Doy Moyer asked: “Is there such a thing as universal harmlessness? Is there really a practice that is totally and completely harmless to everyone and everything in all circumstances? When people say that a practice ‘doesn’t harm anyone,’ are they making some universal statement of truth? Or are they focusing on a particular circumstance? Are there bigger issues that we ought to think about?” (via the Auburn Beacon, 1/5/16)
Third, “It’s not my place to judge others” has become the stock answer to any moral dilemma. This was painfully obvious in the videos. No matter how much the interviewer pressed his questions about the nature of incest, the interviewees simply hid behind the non-judgmental retort. They could not bring themselves to say, “Yes, I believe that is wrong.”
These justifications which seem silly and inconsequential are eroding the moral fabric and civil law in our society. Historically, homosexuality was prohibited because it was rightly deemed harmful by legislators whose moral compasses were better calibrated. But as respect for Scripture was gradually undermined, sweeping social and legal changes began to occur.
Brother Moyer asked, “Are there bigger issues that we ought to think about?” The obvious answer is yes. Foremost of all, “What does God define as right and wrong?” But since it is highly unlikely that our culture will return to that as a standard, we can at least more honestly ask, “What impact does divorce or homosexuality or abortion or incest or gambling or _______________ (you fill in the blank) really have on society?”
Self-willed people will spin these issues to get what they want, and they will use the ambiguity of subjectivism to impose it on others. Fasten your seatbelt, for we are heading down the slippery slope at full tilt.
