Shame on Us for Devaluing Shame

Matthew Cochran has written a good post on the devaluation of shame in our culture with its negative effects in our views on chastity and marriage.  Here is one snippet to whet your appetite:

Men and women are increasingly becoming sexually barbaric. Monogamous marriage having decades ago given way to successive polygamy (or, as it is less accurately known, serial monogamy), successive polygamy is quickly giving way to simple hook-ups—spontaneous sexual encounters with no spoken expectations of continuity. In other words, like a typical squirrel, smelling good and looking good during mating season is pretty much all there is to it for many young men and women. Though this is erroneously considered by many to be liberating, it has a remarkable tendency to inadvertently sound very unpleasant even as it is being extolled. This atrophy of chastity, though bad in and of itself, is accompanied by other types of harm: disease, depression, deliberate barrenness, children deprived of a stable home, and the murder of the inconveniently conceived. These changes in cultural attitudes toward children are particularly barbaric, for children represent the continuity of civilization.

He ends with a call to once again cultivate this good gift of God to society.

A Matter of Both Judgment and Morality

I was reading the opinion and editorial section of the Sunday paper and noted the piece written by Leonard Pitts, Jr of the Miami Herald.  He addressed the really poor judgment of those in national public office to become embroiled in sex scandals.  Individuals who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States became involved in conduct unbecoming of someone trusted to work in the best interest of those they represent.  Instead the men in the article each placed his own interests first.  And then when confronted they dodged, played down, or outright lied about the issue and worked to put the matter behind as quickly as possible.  Mr. Pitts' article makes the point that such bad judgment undermines the public's confidence in the individual's ability to serve properly.  Bravo!  He is quite correct.  And let's face facts: public figures do not have private lives.  What occurs in private will become known eventually.  What were they thinking?

Where Mr. Pitts came short is in addressing the morals—i.e., not at all.  The Miami Herald headline was the author's take: "A Matter of Judgment, not Morality."  Excuse me?  not a matter of morality?  Of course it is.  The Founding Fathers understood that our system of government would not stand if not represented by those with high morals and regard for Christian principles.  Morals are a direct indicator of what can be expected in overall conduct.  If a congressman is self-seeking and unfaithful, that one will do the same to constituents.  He or she will not care about anything but the held office with the accompanying power, prestige, and influence.  Not that I expect moral perfection as that is not possible.  If someone does something wrong, confess it and move on.  The point of the article and my observations deal with a sustained disregard for oaths.  If a person disregards the sanctity of a marriage vow, all other promises or intentions are suspect.

Is there a way for someone like Anthony Weiner to reverse course?  Of course, but the way is painful, because it requires admitting what you are at the core and that you need help.  Rep. Weiner says he is seeking therapy.  Others have done the same.  Will it help?  There will probably be some outward change for an undetermined period of time, but only the symptoms will be addressed.  The issue is sin.  The men mentioned in the article know they were wrong, and only finding someone who can deal with the sin problem will effect any lasting change.  It is the Lord Jesus Christ who atoned for sin and paid the price of redemption.  He did this for me, and I know he did this for these men who disgraced themselves.  The question becomes: will they believe and receive it?