Tag Archives: sexual revolution

The Epitome of the Sexual Revolution

You really need to read this story to see how it all fits together. (HT Crisis)

Single mom looking for cash (divorce?). Rents out womb. Baby has genetic problems. Genetic problems amplified to make situation graver. Renters want abortion. Eventually offer $15K to abort. Surrogate doesn’t want to abort after agreeing to the buyout. Lawyers get involved. Renters sue. Surrogate moves to state with different law. Turns out that renters aren’t actually biological parents as they paid egg donor. Because of that renter-mom has no basis to sue. Still pressured during 3rd trimester to abort. At birth, babies birth certificate lists surrogate as mom and no Father (it’s a miracle!). Surrogate decides she can’t raise child, but doesn’t want out completely. Finds another couple willing to adopt. Biological father comes back wanting a cut. Eventually gives us rights in exchange for information. (He’s held her! How cuddly warm of a Father.)

Yet it is orthodox Christians who are mean and nasty and unloving for saying things like marriage is between one man and one woman for life oriented toward the procreation and rearing of children. You are standing in the way of love goes the cry. Love per the scriptures is covenant faithfulness, living up to your promises, even to the cross. Which is what God does, but we fail at is miserably. That doesn’t mean we don’t call it what it is and run to Christ for absolution. Other than the final adoptive family, all I see from this train-wreck of the sexual revolution, of everybody just following their emotional needs of the moment, is a constant string of broken promises and heart-ache.

Three Interesting Items

1) From the Economic Files, Tyler Cowen injecting a heavy word into the discussion. I think he (maybe Academic Economists in general?) might be stumbling back to a more fundamental understanding of the economy. I remember studying all these models and even building some in prior work and they all worked pretty well, until they didn’t. That didn’t work phase was usually because something big had changed, but if you are focusing on your model and that quarter or even worse that month, you didn’t empirically know what the big things was. You knew it in your gut, but everyone would say, “no, stick with the model for now.”

Trust was broken, most of all in the financial system, but like a wet spill this has soaked into many parts of the economy and polity…In one very real sense, the economy is well below potential output (though less than many people think, due to the great stagnation). In another very real sense, that gap cannot be exploited in the short run by reflationary policy. Once again, it requires a reestablishment of trust. Trust is more easily broken than repaired.

[If you want to see a prime example of the moral blindness, or the unwillingness to consider more fundamental things such as trust, take a look at the comments which take Dr. Cowen to task for using a morally laden word, trust.]

2) An emotionally tough family reflection about the results of the way we live now. This is the story that would go along with last Sunday’s sermon. This is also part of the call of the church to bind the wounds. This generation’s wounds are deep and possibly fatal.

What strikes me most powerfully about the defenders of the sexual revolution is their immovable abstraction. Always the matter is couched in terms of rights, or individual desires—what I want, what I may pursue. That this sexual laissez-faire destroys the common good, by undermining families and rotting whole neighborhoods from within, seems not to matter. Honest sociologists can give us the numbers, of children growing up without fathers or mothers, of the incidence of venereal diseases, of births out of wedlock, of delinquency and crime. I think instead of the people I have known.

3) An editor at Real Clear Religion (part of the burgeoning empire of Real Clear X sites) is thinking along the same lines as I was on the Pew Survey finding more “nones”. The biggest difference is that they don’t think that compounding effect across generations has happened, where I ended in saying that is exactly what we are seeing right now. The statistical numbers are just catching up with the reality. He ends with this.

Fischer’s take was that the Pew survey is basically reinforcing the poll results that they’d worked with a decade ago. And he offers this thought:

“One open question is when this becomes self reinforcing — when the ‘nones’ raise no-religion children, when the cultural climate changes.”

To me, the latest Pew survey brings to mind the chorus of an old union organizing song: “Which side are you on boys? Which side are you on?”

Political and religious pressure from the right is pushing folks who once would have been happy to sit in the middle to pick a side. And increasingly, the side they pick is away from religion.

What he doesn’t address is if that is a good or a bad thing. Is that a call for further gap straddling? Or is that a recognition of Jesus saying things like “I’ve not come to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt 10:34). The nature of gospel is to cause a division.