Sixty years ago, when I was twelve years old, I did not know any child my age who had not had the same father and a mother from the time they were born. One neighbour boy was being raised by his grandmother; there was a highly publicized fund raisng effort every year for the orphange in Indian Head, Saskatchewan. These and other evidences made me aware that not all children were growing up in a stable, two parent homesuch a setting, but that was the accepted norm, or paradigm.
Two generations later, I wonder what percentage of twelve year olds would now say that none of their friends and school-mates have lived with the same two parents since their birth? Judging by the weekly birth listings from a newspaper in a mid-sized Saskatchewan city, only 40% of babies are born to parents who share the same surname. Some unmarried parents will later marry, but 40% of all marrieages will end in divorce. This paints a pretty bleak picture — the majority of today’s childrenwill not grow up in a stable two parent home.
What happened? Not all the homes of 60 years ago could be described as happy homes; a few would have been miserably u8nhappy. Because of these few unfortunate situations, our society has taken a sledgehammer to the paradigm of marriage and family. Years ago the intellectual leaders of the sociology and psychology departments of our universities made no secret of their desire to destroy the family, teaching that it was the enemy of human progress toward freedom and self-fullfilment.
The sexual revolution came upon us very suddenly. The pill gave teenagers the feeling that they could experiment freely with sex withoiut consequences. And if there were consequences — well, abortion soon became readily available and socially aceptable. And then the stigma of homosexuality was removed. Within a few years everything that stood in the way of seeking unbridled pleasure in sex was swept away. Of course there have been consequences, but no one wants to admit that the increasing abuse and violence against women and children has anything to do with the sexual revolution.
We survey the wreckage around us and agree something needs to be done to fix it. But we can’t agree on what should be done. The seeds sown many years ago are bearing fruit today in the form of people who see persoanal freedom as the ultimate goal and therefore view marriage as a form of bondage for both men and women.
Sixty years ago, the majority of people still went to church every Sunday. I think we are down to about 10% now. Many of the churches of years ago had bought into the social gospel movement, which was just a camouflaged version of socialism and psychological-sociological thinking. Those same churches endorsed the sexual revolution on the basis that all liberty is good and wholesome. Today they are dying out, since a church that applauds all that is done in secular society makes itself irrelevant.
What may be a greater problem are the self-proclaimed evangelical churches that have no idea how to apply the evangel to the needs of society around them. They are seen to be making inept attempts to appear relevant, without addressing the basic needs of people. All too often, that is because they have bought into a large portion of the values of the secular society.
In a few years time we have gone from being a society largely founded on Christian values to a pagan society that is not much different than the world in which the apostles lived. What is needed today is the same straightforward gospel that they preached. That is, the gospel needs to be presented to the people who are suffereing the most from the malaise of our time as the only true remedy for their distress. That would mean actually taking the Word of God at its word, and not trying to smooth over the parts that challenge the current paradigms of our society. We need to preach repentance as John the Baptist and our Lord preached it. Not in a self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude, but with compassion for all the victims of the current broken and fatal paradigms.