This month's Grape Leaves discusses the cause and effect of crumbling social foundations. The "anything goes" or "it's all good" mentality is chipping away at the values, structure, and boundaries of civilized society. Part 1 of this article deals with the problem. Part 2 will be posted next month and offers options for responding to this social deterioration.

~~~

Part 1 of a 2 Part Message

I recently returned from a trip to Europe during which I visited numerous old cathedrals, Roman ruins, and generally ancient edifices. The most common characteristic of each of these was that they'd been built on rock solid foundations. It didn't matter if they were 12th century, 9th century or 4th century, the builders knew that a solid foundation had to be laid in order for the structure to remain solid and safe. Although the foundations have required the occasional shoring up, each has persisted in its longevity. I find that there is something metaphorical about these ancient structures and society.

As with any metaphor, one must be careful not to take it too far. So without going to the point of the ridiculous, consider the parallels between these long standing structural foundations and the social foundations of our modern world. Although the historical and solid foundation of western civilization was once faith in God and the church, these foundations have been all too often uprooted and destroyed. The replacement for such bedrock is the cause of great instability in our societies. In many instances, social anarchy is barely hidden beneath a veneer of civility.

Scripture tells us in Matthew 7.21-27 that builders who construct their homes on solid, rock construct buildings that withstand time and adversity. In contrast, construction insinuated on a base of shifting sand quickly crumbles as there is nothing on which the building can gain stability. This is true structurally and metaphorically when speaking of individual and collective lives. Collectively, a society that rejects a common basis of truth, right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable soon finds that everyone is at odds with everyone else with the result being the collapse of the society. In contrast, when a society establishes itself through a clear charter of absolutes, the society grows and flourishes. People know what behavior is accepted and rewarded and are therefore able to better themselves, and those who flout the rules receive the appropriate retribution which in turn dissuades errant behavior. Unfortunately, the western world is daily tearing away its solid foundations in an effort to remain non-offensive to individuals with divergent behavior. It's just not politically correct (PC) to say No, or Wrong, or Bad to the behavior of another person.

An experience from my recent trip clearly depicts this. A group of lads on holiday got a bit too far into their pints before a flight. Once aboard, a number of their group became progressively rude and offensive to the other passengers. In addition to the incessant shouting of obscenities, several of them crawled on the floor and under seats, reached over seats and touched passengers, pushed the flight attendants out of their way, and refused to remain seated during landing. No one, not even the flight crew, said a word to the miscreants until the situation nearly escalated to blows.  A male passenger seated in the midst of the ruffians threatened to have it out with the primary offender. When the drunken lad nearly dove over his seat in response, a flight attendant finally admonished him to remain seated. It was with great relief that I arrived at my destination and left the mayhem behind.

Just before the narrowly averted brawl, the young man who had had enough told the lout that he was welcome to do anything he wanted on his own time, but once his behavior crossed the line of the other's rights, then that was it! But wait, isn't there a contradiction here? Yes, there is and it is the same sandy substance on which society hopes to gain stability. The assumption is that there are no absolutes of right or wrong until one person offends another. But how can this be? For who is to say what can be counted as an offense? On the flight, I was terribly offended by the group of lads' behavior, not to mention their crude vocabulary. I felt my personal rights were being violated long before the final altercation. But when I spoke of this with other passengers while waiting for our luggage, they merely replied that lads will be lads and such behavior should be ignored. So, where is the line of offense drawn? Is it truly based on individual opinion, or must it be established by some sort of general consent? And who has authority to establish what constitutes general consent?

Ah, to this the usual response is that whatever the majority believes to be acceptable or reprehensible makes a thing right or wrong. But isn't society a bit fickle to entrust themselves with such decisions? Don't get me wrong - consensus has its place. But if the consent of the majority makes a thing wrong or right, then the world has no complaint against Nazi Germany. After all, it was by majority that Hitler came to power and the majority of citizens were pleased with the economic reform he established. How he did it seemed not to be of much concern. Or what of ancient Rome where it was common practice and fully accepted to commit infanticide if a child was not wanted? Did the acceptance of this behavior by the majority make it right? And in more recent times, did the majority decisions of Sadam's ministers make his policies of murder and genocide ethical? To all of these questions, we must answer a resounding No! Rule by majority can only succeed when that majority has absolute standards by which to make decisions.

Proposing standards of behavior is a hallmark of civilization. Without standards and laws, anarchy and chaos rule. Isn't it disconcerting that western civilization is moving away from what is civilized, and has instead chosen the slippery slope leading back to cave-brutality? This is nearly the same as rex lex, the king (or the one wielding power) is law, rather lex rex - the law is king (is the ultimate authority). Although our society has been based on the latter, it is quickly embracing the former.

Lex Rex, rule by law must not be established in a vacuum; otherwise we're right back to rule by majority which we've already discussed is flawed. Law must find its basis in a higher power. The only power valid on which law can be made is God. Anything else is merely a matter of opinion. Consequently, the foundation and basis for successful society was laid at Mt. Sinai when Moses received the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20.1-17). They are depicted throughout history as the cornerstone of civilized society. But where do they stand in modern society? Currently in the US, the courts have determined that they may not be on display in government facilities, unless they are there for historical purposes, lest they imply some religious intent. How senseless! There could be no law without God, and seeing as how God and religion are forever intertwined, it is impossible to have one without the other. So, it seems that the courts are intent on the full removal of the Ten Commandments from government. But without the Ten Commandments, what foundation remains for government, for law and for civilized society? What will be the result of this social unraveling and how should Christians respond?

Discussion questions - please email us or use the comment form to share your responses.

What is the role of church congregations in society and do you think congregations have a positive impact on society?

What is the basis for democratic government? Is it preferable to socialism, communism, or dictatorships?

Should modern governments be predicated on the existence of God? Why or why not?