|
|
Changes in society
Society’s morals and people’s worldviews are constantly changing. What is the position of the Christian faith in the midst of everything?
This writing is about some of the tendencies and behaviours of today’s society. The purpose is to find out what changes have occurred in general thinking and how it has affected people's daily lives and society. The situation is not the same as it was a few decades ago, when we lived in a unified culture and the values were almost the same for everyone. Christian teaching, in particular, was then respected and considered important, but now from it has moved further and further away. Therefore, it is good to study changes in people's thinking and how they have affected our lives. We start with the theory of evolution.
THEORY OF EVOLUTION. If one were to name the one theory or doctrine that has caused the greatest change in people’s thinking, one strong candidate would be the theory of evolution that Darwin made popular in On the Origin of Species in 1859. It took only 10-20 years from the publication of the book, when this theory became generally accepted. Before then, people thought it self-evident that God was behind it all and that species are in about the same form as when they were created. This was what children learned in school; and people considered the description found in the Bible about the beginning of all to be historical and reliable. What is the fruit that comes from our acceptance of evolution? Excluding the scientific aspect, there are probably two products that have grown from it: degradation of human dignity, and degradation of morals.
Degradation of human dignity is a natural consequence of belief in evolution. People who do not believe that we are images of God (like the Bible says) but instead believe that we are descended from animals may either (1) not draw a huge difference between humans and the rest of creation, or (2) might believe that some races or groups of people are more evolved and thus are better than the others. These attitudes either degrade the value of humanity or reduce the value of some groups of people. A good example of an attitude that degrades the value of a particular group of people is Nazism. The leading Nazis believed in the theory of evolution. It provided them with a scientific excuse for their racism, race doctrines and the killing of people who belonged to certain groups, such as the disabled. For example, Adolf Eichmann, who directly or indirectly caused the death of several thousand people, did not see his actions as being wrong. In his trial, he used the theory of evolution to justify what he had done. Darwin himself was not a supporter of such ideologies, but this does not change the fact that the Nazis ended up with their conclusion based on his theory. It is true that there were bad philosophies before Darwin, but what the Nazis did was one logical consequence of believing in the theory of evolution. If they had believed the opposite – that people are valuable images of God and that they should love their neighbours as themselves – then they would not have done as they did. They are an extreme example of how beliefs influence our behaviour. Our thoughts about our origins guide everything we do. They also influence our attitude towards others.
- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- (Matt 7:12) Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
- (Matt 22:36-39) Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Relative morality is another consequence of the theory of evolution that has influenced society in past decades. It is because if man has evolved from mere inanimate matter and his origin is impersonal, then it is difficult to explain the meaning of moral values. If there is no Creator, then there is no purpose in life and no one to whom we will one day be accountable for our actions. There is nothing absolute and morality has no fixed point to be anchored to. We create our own values and then anyone's opinion is equal to others. Morality varies from person to person. If you ask a pedophile, a playboy, a prostitute, Saddam Hussein, a murderer or an ordinary person, everyone will give a different answer. Everyone can defend their actions and consider them reasonable, even if others disagree. Relative morality, with no absolute authority, creates such a spectrum of opinion. Evolution is a religion that justifies the fact that everyone can come up with their own rules. This belief has affected the morals and ethics in society, and thus the behavior of people.
This is connected to the fact that your thoughts about your origins influence your entire view of the world, your purpose of life, etc. If there is no God and we are only the result of random processes, it means that there is no absolute authority. And if there is nobody to set the rules, anybody can do anything and hope that they won’t get caught. Evolution is a religion that entitles people to come up with their own rules. (...) If it is difficult for you to believe that evolution is connected to the issues mentioned above, you will see the connection clearly after studying a couple of historical examples. In fact, I have yet to meet a single well-educated evolutionist who disagrees with me about the connection of these moral issues and evolution. They are not necessarily of the opinion that this is what should have happened but they do agree that people have applied evolution in this way. It is important for you not to misunderstand what I’m about to say. Of course, there were bad philosophies that go against God already before Darwinist evolution. People did abortions long before Darwin announced his popular view on evolution. However, people’s beliefs about their origins influence the way they view the world. When people reject God -- the Creator -- their attitude towards themselves, other people and our world changes. (1)
FEMINISM AND FAMILY LIFE. Many of the changes that have taken place in society over the past decades pertain to family life. One of the influences that has caused such changes is the women’s liberation movement that rose into prominence in the 1960s. At that time, a small group of women started to demand that men and women must be treated equally in working life and that society must take responsibility for child care. They also belittled the differences between men and women, and the importance of being a housewife. They wanted to break the traditional models of women and also men that had been used in society for decades and centuries. It was thought that a woman cannot be equal if she is not like a man in everything. And the development didn't stop there. At the same time, there were demands for free abortion and free sexual relations without marriage. They came up strongly in the general debate, along with the demands of the feminist movement. Matti Joensuu describes the development of public opinion in the 1960s in Finland:
Ryhmä 9 (Group 9) was established in the autumn of 1965; the next year its new name was Yhdistys 9 (Association 9). This group of people, mostly consisting of young people with an academic degree and students, was very prominent in the media. There was hardly a televised discussion without a member of Association 9 in it. They focused on the equality of women and men, tried to prove that the differences between women and men had been exaggerated, discussed the precarious position of widowed or divorced women and their children and the position of children born out of wedlock and their mothers, the contribution of fathers in child care, and the society’s responsibility for developing day-care services. Their typical approach included appealing to research results to justify their claims and demands. In the world of high school, those who demanded justification for sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married. It seemed as though the Teenager Union had been conquered by new leaders who announced not only socialism and school democracy but also an idea of free sexual relationships. What was new about this situation was that reference groups had been formed that talked about gender issues in a much more open way than formerly in public and accused the society and the church of double standards. (...) They even pitted the institute of marriage and true love against each other. People living together out of wedlock were interviewed in public and depicted as sort of heroes of the new morals who had the courage to oppose the morals of the dilapidated bourgeois society. Homosexuals were also interviewed and demands for free abortions were voiced. (2)
Next, we examine the previous changes and their significance in society. In addition, we consider how well-founded these viewpoints are. The difference between man and woman. One of the goals of the feminist movement has been equality, which usually means that a woman should be independent, working, financially independent and leaving her children in the care of society. It was thought that women would not be equal unless they did the same things as men and that the differences between men and women were not very big. They don't want to accept that men and women could have different roles in society, but especially at home. Despite everything, the differences are still there. When the needs of marriage have been studied, they are of different types for men and women. Of course, there are common needs, such as the need to be accepted as one is, but there are also different needs. The following list, which has been arrived at in connection with marriage work, describes the matter. The needs are described in order of importance:
The difference between a man and a woman is also evident in the fact that a man usually defines himself through doing and work, but a woman through relationships. For men, unemployment can be a tougher place than for women, while women consider relationships more important than their own careers. The following two examples point in this direction. The first of them is Carol Cilligan's statement. He interviewed professionally successful women and noted how they valued good relationships with others more than their successful careers. Academic achievements were not on the same level as human relationships on their scale of values. The second quote refers to the man's wishes and desire to bear financial responsibility for the family. That's why many men feel that just being at home and being unemployed is a heavy burden. It is much more difficult for men than for women:
When I asked the women to describe themselves, they all referred to their relationships. They described themselves as being a mother, a wife, an adopted child, an ex lover – they depicted their identity in relation to somebody else. These highly educated women who had done well in their careers did not even mention their academic or professional achievements when describing themselves. They even thought that their professional activity could make it more difficult for them to be aware of themselves. (...) They defined their identity in relation to other people. (3)
The third assumption is related to breadwinners, as Finland has persistently strived for equality in this regard. Doctor of Theology Sari Kokkonen did her dissertation research on the topic "As an unemployed father in family and society" and she was surprised by how strong the image of the male breadwinner who takes care of the family's finances lives on. For some of the men he interviewed, the experience of fatherhood was built on the basis of earning a living, and their unemployment caused the experience of the instability of their own position both within the family and in society. It was especially difficult for them to adjust to being at home. The researcher is amazed at how his research results reflect a family culture divided into different roles, where the father's duties are seen more through financial responsibility. The higher salary level of men has been found to support the permanence of the arrangement. (4)
The third quote goes on to reveal the differences between a man and a woman. A young journalist woman noticed that men are not like women after all. For him, it was a shock. Such dissimilarity suggests the richness and difference that exists between men and women. Both genders have their own positive features: women are better and more skilful than men in some areas, whereas men are better than women in other aspects of life. Their interests also vary somewhat. Of course, there are also individual differences between different people.
A young female reporter was reading the online discussion forum of a Finnish magazine Vauva that is meant for people with babies and also noticed that there was a separate discussion forum for fathers. The reporter was amazed when she noticed what the men were talking about: not about babies and being involved in childbirth, but about cars. They had plenty of opinions and analyses when comparing different types of Japanese family cars, but only a few had answered a question about how it felt to be present when their child was born. The reporter was even more amazed because she knows a fair amount of men who do not even have a driver’s license. She had never thought that having a baby would cause an overwhelming need for men to talk about cars with their peers! She was truly shocked at how different the interests of men are from those of women. (5)
Feminism and housewives
- (Tit 2:4,5) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
- (1 Tim 5:9,10,14,15) Let not a widow be taken into the number under three score years old, having been the wife of one man. 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
The starting point in the feminist movement has been that when men and women are the same and do the same things, they are equal. The difference between men and women and different roles, which are valuable and in which both complement each other, are not acknowledged. Instead, people try to put both sexes in the same mold, which is certainly not the right model. A man cannot, for example, give birth and nurse a child like women do. Furthermore, throughout the centuries, the care of small children has always been the responsibility of women. We don't know of cultures where the main responsibility for child care rested with the man. He can temporarily do it, but generally women are better at it. Feminists have traditionally also admired women who make a career for themselves instead of becoming housewives. It has been thought that it is equality and there is something glamorous about it. A stay-at-home mother has been considered too conventional. However, belittling housewifery is a relatively new trend. Even in the early 1960s, this was not exactly thought of, as the description from the sixties shows.
A clear change has occurred in the values of the society. In the 1960s, many Finnish companies still considered it a matter of honour to pay their employees such good salary that their wives did not have to seek gainful employment. This way of thinking was based on the idea that family was the centre of it all, and the husband and wife had different roles but were both equally important. Such a practice would be denied nowadays as unequal. (6)
Of course, it is true that some women may feel that they are forced to stay at home with their children. If this is the case, it might be better for the woman to find a job. Another reason for working can be money. Many would like to stay at home to take care of the children, but it is not financially possible, which is unfortunate. For example, in Finland, approx. 40 percent of parents of kindergarten children have expressed their willingness to do so, but money has been an obstacle. What has been the significance of the decrease in home care in terms of society? According to many studies, it can be harmful, especially for younger children, who have to pay for it. If they are separated from their parents too early, it can adversely affect their emotional development. Institutional care is rarely able to replace home care:
Finnish women are not the only ones to struggle with their careers and their home: the same discussion is ongoing in other parts of Europe and the United States. Magazines publish stories about mothers with great careers who took a short or longer pause from their working life to be a stay-at-home mother. They have questioned their ambitious professional goals and tried to find an alternative way of living and working. They have not been satisfied with breaking the glass ceiling in their careers: instead, they have left the career competition to their husbands and devoted themselves to taking care of their children and home. Research results by child psychiatrists like John Bowlby, Donald Winnicott and Penelope Leah warning about the dangers caused by the lack of home care to children have influenced such behaviour. Their research has depicted the attachment theory I studied above and the emotional and intellectual development of children. There have also been studies about the ill effects of day-care in very small children. An extensive study published in the US in 2003 suggests that group day-care is clearly much more punishing for children under the age of three than any other form of care. It causes aggression and other emotional dysfunctions. These are long-term effects. (7)
David Wilkerson, a well-known preacher, also talked about the importance of a mother being present in a child’s life. A father is naturally important too, because balanced development of a child requires both parents. The mother cannot replace the father or vice versa:
I asked Dave about this. “I was planning to write a book about child care,” Dave said to me, laughing. “This was years ago. I gathered my children and said to them, ‘I want you to tell what we did right. You all serve God and I’m very proud of you and of what God made of you.’ “I assumed that they would say, ‘Dad, everything was because of the long discussions we had with you.’ When a child of mine had problems, I prayed for them and asked the Lord to reveal the cause of the problems. “We sat on the floor and opened the Bible, and I told them what the Holy Spirit had told me. I was right almost every time and we always received something from the Holy Spirit. It was also good to know that they knew I was worried about them. “So I thought that they would say that these discussions were everything. I was shocked to hear them all say, 'Mom was always home when we came from school. She was always there.’ David grinned at me. “They did not say a word of my long talks with them. But they did tell me the truth. One reason why they are so great is that Gwen was always there for them. She was there when they came home from school. I was never there, but they could rest assured that their mother would always be there. “They came home shouting, ‘Mom!’, got their cookies and glasses of milk, and then went out to play. Gwen was always there for them. “I think this is why so many children have so much difficulty nowadays. Nobody is there to greet them when they come home from school. “They need a mother to be there waiting for them.” (8)
DIVORCE
- (Rom 7:1-3) Know you not, brothers, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
- (1 Cor 7:39) The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
- (Mal 2:14-16) Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, said that he hates putting away: for one covers violence with his garment, said the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.
- (Mark 10:11,12) And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.
- (Luke 16:18) Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.
- (Rev 2:21) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
One modern tendency is that divorce is becoming more common. Divorces were fairly uncommon a couple of decades ago and before the war, but now people more and more often get a divorce because of adultery, alcoholism, violence, financial issues and discord in general. People more easily get a divorce because of these reasons or for other reasons because the society approves of divorce. How do the divorces influence society? One consequence is financial: divorce is not free. Instead, it has been observed that divorces cost society a lot. The worst problem is the destruction of human relations – a divorce is often very difficult for the children – but financial stresses should not be overlooked either. (It has been noted that only 10% of children consider a divorce to be a relief, usually only because there has been constant violence or abuse; or have been some other severe problems in the family.) The following two newspaper articles are about this problem and the result from the current tendency.
Almost a billion euros will soon be used in institutional care for children and youth Children's problems have escalated dramatically since the early 1990s
The expenses arising from institutional and family care in child welfare are currently increasing by more than 10% per year. This year, institutional and family care for children and the young will cost around EUR 670 million. If the sum continues to increase, it will exceed the billion-euro limit in five years. The number of children in institutional care has doubled since the early 1990s. Problems with children have increased to such an extent that most custody decisions are now urgent. There are many reasons why more and more children are in institutional care: drugs and alcohol, crime, mental health problems and unemployment. Inequality reigns in society, and the number of poor families with children has tripled. The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010) However, outpatient care in child welfare was shut down during the last economic downswing. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010) Divorce is costly for many
Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved. A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce. "Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association. According to Sairisalo, as many as 25% of all single parents must live on relief. Among the entire Finnish population, 10% live on relief, and the figure is even lower for families with both parents. In a survey done by Nordea Bank last year, only slightly over a third of families with children estimated that they would be able to live in their old home when one of the parents moves out. A parent living with the children alone needs almost as much room as a family with both parents: after all, the number of bedrooms needed will not change. (...) "Fixed costs will increase," Sorjonen points out. Sorjonen also pays attention to the use of time: a single parent has to handle the transport of the children alone because there is nobody to help. This will lower the everyday standard of living and, according to Sorjonen, can even be a threat to the single parent's ability to work: many day-care centres are not flexible in terms of the parents' working hours. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)
Can divorces be prevented? It is often fairly difficult if the spouses do not want to be helped. However, this might be changed by means of legislation or by offering personal support. Many marital problems can resolve themselves and many also regret their divorce afterwards, so preventive measures can be helpful. It is always better and cheaper to treat the causes than the consequences. The problem is that resignation has been made too easy. There is no mediation and no action to keep the union together. The attitude in society, in which divorce is no longer seen as a wrong and shameful thing, has led to more and more people resigning for ever smaller reasons.
A study has shown that around 30% of divorced couples regret the divorce three years later. Up to 80% of divorces could be prevented by providing properly targeted support for people whose marriage is in a crisis. People do not always understand that all relationships change over time. It is sad if people start to think about getting a divorce whenever they experience a problem because that is not the only way to proceed. (...) The Marriage Act could be reformed by returning to mandatory mediation before a divorce is granted. When the mandatory mediation was relinquished in 1988 the divorce rate increased by around 30%. The new Marriage Act included the term “settling family affairs” but it was not connected to the divorce process itself. Instead, it referred to the option of voluntarily getting support and aid. The most important goal with the mediation would be preventing unnecessary divorces. Mediation should be mandatory at least in cases where the spouses do not agree on the terms and conditions of the divorce or where the spouses have children under the age of 18. This would both cause financial savings and reduce human suffering. (9)
SEXUALITY. As stated above, there has been a change in terms of sexuality. Cohabitation and premarital sex have become accepted forms of behavior, whereas in the past they were considered clearly wrong and reprehensible. This transformation, the sexual revolution, occurred almost at the same time as the rise of feminism, in the late 1960s. It spread strongly through the media when it was strongly promoted by supporters of the new morality. A description from forty years ago shows the development of that time:It almost seems like some kind of a party for people who despise legal marriage had been formed in Finland over the past few years. The party’s member base may not be very wide but the members are very loud. This party is very hard to define. Some members say that they are leftists whereas others are clearly rightists. Both Finnish- and Swedish-speaking people have good representation in the ranks of the party. One gets the impression of a kind of group of believers who somehow vaguely believe that legal marriage is at least not very necessary. Without marriage, people could better love each other and society in general would be happier. Yhdistys 9 (Association 9) has also interfered in the position of marriage. (10)
What are the consequences and what is the significance of changing gender morality and what does the Bible say on this subject? That is what we are going to explore next. We begin with the teaching of the Bible.
The Bible and sexuality. When you read the Bible, it becomes clear that sexuality in itself is not a bad thing. God created man and woman as sexual beings, to complement each other, and God considered it good like all creation (Genesis 1:31). The only limitation when it comes to sexuality is that it should happen in marriage. The so-called sexual revolution that emerged in the late 1960s was not a sexual liberation in this sense, as there had always been sex. The only difference was that the radicals of the 1960s thought that marriage was not necessary for the practice of sexuality. They despised the biblical instructions and did not understand that it was a sin of fornication:
- (1 Cor 7:1-5) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband. 4The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Consequences. When gender morality has changed and cohabitation and divorce have become more and more accepted, it has had great effects. One consequence has been the increase in single-parent families. When freedom has been sought, it has practically bound people more. For children, the situation is also worse, because their problems have escalated (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat reported on October 31, 2010: "Children's problems have escalated drastically since the beginning of the 1990s"). In practice, freedom has led to an increase in malaise in society.
Actress and writer Eppu Nuotio and researcher Tommi Hoikkala discuss the confusion about the male-female relationship. Hoikkala wonders why is it that the nuclear family started to disintegrate when women got more rights. He believes that Finland will soon be faced with the same situation as Sweden is already facing: the most common family form is a single mother and her one child. Women wanted to be freed from the situation where they had no freedom of choice and ended up in a situation where they have no freedom of choice. (...) Many women become exhausted because of their household chores, studying and short-term employment. Hoikkala is of the opinion that these problems in relationships have been caused by the fact that men cannot bear women who are successful. As people’s tolerance becomes lower, their threshold in getting a divorce also lowers. Finland now has a culture of divorce. (11)
Selfishness. As stated, sexuality in itself is not a bad thing, only its abuse is. This is similar to false patriotism, where other nations and foreigners are despised and the value of one's own nation is raised. Or it is something similar to the abuse of food, which results in overeating and gaining weight. Neither of them, like sexuality, are inherently wrong, but people can act in them in harmful ways. Selfishness is very characteristic in premarital and extramarital relationships. We only want the pleasure of another, but are not ready to commit or be faithful to our spouse. Such a person also does not think very far into the future. He doesn't think about things in the light of eternity or even with a 20-30 year perspective. Is he married then and what is the status of his children and and what kind of a relationship he has with children, is he a playboy with many superficial relationships behind him, is he a single parent or what is his situation? People rarely think about these things, but they are worth considering. Eternity is of course the most important thing. If it is true that we will have to account for our actions in this life, we are not very wise if we reject this idea. Being selfish and only pursuing our own interests is the stupidest thing we can do. According to the Bible, we are responsible for every choice and action we make in this life (Hebr 9:27: And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment).
Just think how accurately God judges every unbeliever! Each day of each life is analyzed in detail. The secret thoughts and motives of each moment are reviewed again, as well as all actions and attitudes. Words spoken in secret are made public, the intentions of the heart are displayed for all to see. There is no lawyer to turn to, no excuses to defend yourself. There are only bare, indisputable facts. I believe that the balance of justice is so precise that a producer of pornography wishes he had never published such material; a thief wishes he had earned his living honestly; and the adulterer regrets his immoral life. Faithfulness to the marriage vow would not have earned the man a place in heaven, but it would have made his time in hell a little more tolerable. Before God, motives are not misinterpreted and mitigating factors are not taken into account. The woman who seduced the man will receive the appropriate punishment, and the man who allowed himself to be seduced will receive his share of the punishment. All accusations will be accurately in the right relation to the acts. (12)
HOMOSEXUALITY. When there have been changes in society, many of them are related to sexuality, such as feminism and the downplaying of the difference between men and women, divorces and premarital sex relationships. These things became generally accepted or common knowledge starting in the 1960s, although the same behavior has been occurring throughout. In the wake of these things, homosexuality also came. An issue that was not in the headlines much before came to people's awareness through marches and activists pushing for this issue. The same shift that was happening to society’s attitudes towards feminism and the sexual revolution took place in many people's attitude towards homosexuality: it changed to positive acceptance. People no longer saw homosexuality as wrong behavior. Next, we will study what is new with the current situation and what has changed. It is a question of minor differences in the ways of thinking.
"Innate thing". The first difference from the past is that today homosexuality is considered an innate thing, just like the skin color that a person has inherited. It is no longer considered a sin and wrong behavior, but something that the person himself and others must accept. An example of this is that psychology used to offer conversion therapy to homosexuals, because it was believed that this issue was caused by circumstances and that it could be healed. But now the trend is that it is not offered much, because it is thought to be an innate characteristic like skin color. So which is closer to the truth, the traditional or the modern view? There is disagreement, naturally, but the traditional view is much stronger. This is supported by numerous interview studies that have been conducted on the issue. Many homosexuals themselves believe that it is not a matter of innateness. They consider circumstances to be the most important factors.
I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person. Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (13)
"You can't get rid of it". This argument originates from the previous belief. When homosexuality is believed to be an innate thing like skin color, it is considered impossible to be freed from it. This is impossible in their opinion. God, who freed people from physical slavery in Egypt and thus took a negative view of this matter, can nevertheless free man also from the slavery of sin, of which this matter is one form. At least Jesus promised so (John 8:34-36: Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin. And the servant stays not in the house for ever: but the Son stays ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.) When many alcoholics, drug addicts or habitual criminals have been freed from their addiction, why can't a homosexual also experience the same if he wants to? It is wrong to limit God's possibilities in this matter.
When I said that I was going to preach about homosexuality, several people from my congregation took me aside and said, sometimes with tears in their eyes, “You know, I’m really looking forward to your sermon about homosexuality.” They might leave afterwards but they had left me their weak plea for help. I have seen God doing miracles in this area in people's lives. A man wrote to me, “I attentively listened to you three years ago when you preached about homosexuality. Your sermon encouraged me to finally step out of the shadows and tell somebody about my problems in this area of life.” Then he described how he found help and concluded the letter by saying, “Now, three years later, I’m healthier and happier than I ever believed I could be. God has been faithful. And I finally feel freed from the ties that kept me in their hold. Please tell all homosexuals that there is hope. Remind them that God cares for them.” (14)
CRIMINALITY. When the previous paragraph discussed divorce and its importance for society, the same thing is somehow connected to crimes. (In Finland, in the early 1950s, approx. 20,000 property crimes were recorded, but in the early 1990s there were already over 200,000 property crimes. At the same time, the number of divorces and breakdowns of cohabitations has multiplied, so crimes and family breakdowns seem to be connected.) It has been observed that bad interpersonal relationships, divorce of parents or child growing up in an institution are risk factors on the path leading to crime. That doesn't happen to everyone, but the difference to children raised in intact families is noticeable. Fatherlessness in particular is a modern problem, as the following examples show:
Jesus does not talk about “mother” but “father” in His parable about the prodigal son. A son needs a father! A daughter needs a father! In my opinion, fatherlessness is the reason why so many young Finns have fallen to a life of crime. They don’t have a father at all or only a mockery of a father. They don’t have a genuine, warm father figure. They have a strange man who sometimes comes to their home, whom they do not know and who does not know them. (...) It is sad that placing insecure children in institutions where it is difficult for them to make contact with other people is more and more common, and placing children in private homes is less common nowadays. The cooling of love towards children can also be seen in this tendency. When people do not have their own children, they do not want to take in somebody else’s. People want more and more comfort. (...) All of the killers mentioned in this book have spent some time in institutional care. This is already some sort of evidence about institutionalised children. They are common customers in courts of justice. The most major reason behind the crimes seems to be the lack of a father and mother, the lack of love. (15)
Another simultaneous study (Camilla Hagelstam 2002) reviewed the social background of fifty people under the age of twenty who had committed a homicide. (...) The most major difference between the young people who had committed homicide and the other youth was that 40% of the criminals were children of single-parent families whereas only 16% of the other youth were from such families. The study clearly proved that children need a family with both a father and a mother. Boys, in particular, seem to need a father figure. Poverty or unemployment do not increase the risk of committing homicide but lack of old-fashioned care and upbringing may do so. Bad behaviour should not be allowed, thinking that it is a normal part of youth and will pass in time. Troublemaking and bad manners should be interfered immediately – but care, supervision, upbringing, being present, discussions and encouragement should be started as soon as the child turns one. (16)
When it comes to preventing crime, there are different ways to do it, which to some extent affect it. At least the following methods may be useful:
• Prohibiting private persons from owning Guns or limiting the way guns can be used. For example, in the United States, approximately 30,000 deaths occur each year in which a gun has been involved. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of other cases where weapons have been used. Based on the statistics, D. Rosenbaum has stated:
An estimated 30,000 deaths are recorded each year in which firearms have been used in a crime, accident or suicide. In addition to this, the firearm has been present or has been fired or has somehow been otherwise related to the course of events in 900,000 other cases. We have to ask ourselves what the overall picture would be if the use of firearms were severely restricted." (D. Rosenbaum: Community Crime Prevention: A review and synthesis of the literature. Justice Quarterly, Vol. 5, 323-395, 1988) (17)
• Increasing the price of alcohol or limiting its availability. For example, in Finland, a large proportion of crimes and acts of violence are committed under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is also the cause of numerous traffic accidents and domestic violence. Numerous studies in the Nordic countries (Lenke, Skog, Björk and Sirén) have shown that there is a clear connection between alcohol consumption and violent crime. "In an analysis of Norway in the period 1931-1977, Skog and Björk obtained the result that an increase of one liter in per capita alcohol consumption (converted to pure alcohol) produced a 16 percent increase in violence. The measure was the number of people convicted of violent crimes." (Reino Sirén & Martti Lehti: Musta maaliskuu, p. 12) Other studies have given similar results regarding the connection between homicide and assault and alcohol consumption. The strikes of the Finnish alcohol monopoly in 1972 and 1985 showed the connection between alcohol and crime. During the month-long strike in 1985, disorderly conduct at public events, violent crimes and drunk driving decreased by about a fifth, and drunk driving arrests decreased by about a third. The effects of the 1972 strike were similar.
Both in the 1920s and in 1969, a major increase of alcohol consumption was accompanied by a major increase in the homicide rate. The annual average homicide rate proportioned to the population was 8.4 victims per 100,000 inhabitants in the 1920s, 66% higher than in 1905–1913 and 166% higher than during the early years of the 20th century. In 1969 the crime rate increased by 27%, and continued to increase in the next few years. Assaults registered by the police also clearly increased, by 38% on the previous year. The strong increase in alcohol consumption continued until 1974, and so did the increase in violent crimes: this increase did not level out until after the mid-1970s (Sirén 2000). Another issue worth mentioning is that violence increased the most (+48%) among people between the ages of 18 and 20 (i.e. the young who had just reached the age when they could buy liquor from the Alko stores) (Sirén 2003). (18)
• Television and mass media influence people's behavior and there has been a change in them for the worse. When they offer false models such as adultery, divorce, sex without marriage, homosexuality and other wrong behavior, it is quite certain that it increases the tendency to act according to these models. In turn, it increases the financial burden on society, because as a result of divorce, families break up and crime also increases. The same connection has been observed between violent crime and television material. When watching violent material for years, it has been found that it lowers the threshold for wrongdoing. Violent and sexual entertainment numbs a person.
Numerous studies have proven that people who recurrently watch TV shows or movies with exiting or strong violence or sex become numb towards violence. In two surveys on young convicts who had committed violent crimes (murder, rape, assault), 22–30% of the respondents stated that they had intentionally copied criminal techniques they had learned when watching TV. The Hollywood entertainment industry is desperately dependent on the profits it gets from TV shows and movies containing sex and violence. (19)
The quote below from decades ago shows the importance of immoral material. It is a question of criminal activities related to sex. The people who have committed them have almost invariably read or watched material that has led them to act in distorted ways. What a person fills his mind with ultimately affects his behavior.
Herbert W. Case, a former police superintendent in Detroit, stated the following when talking about torture, unnatural sexual acts and murders: “There has not been a single sex murder case in our department where the murderer had not eagerly read pornographic magazines.” Chief of Police Paul E. Blubaum of Phoenix, Arizona, stated the following: “"Our city has experienced many crimes related to sexual abnormality, including child harassment and inappropriate self-disclosure. We have found that most of these disturbed individuals read obscene publications and often even show them to children, trying to evoke a sexual response.” (20)
• Residential planning and housing policy, if sensible, can reduce crime. It has especially been noticed that if there are many children and disadvantaged people in the same area, it is a risk factor. A sensible housing policy can prevent problems from arising.
• Meaning of punishments. If the punishments are nominal, the risk of getting caught is small or wrongdoing is not dealt with, it increases crime. It has been established that the sooner crime is dealt with and there are consequences, the better the cycle of crime can be prevented. Looking through the fingers, where you can commit dozens of similar wrongdoings without consequences, on the other hand, keeps the criminal cycle going.
Legislators and the authorities should also study in more detail international tried and effective means of preventing crime and eliminating the resulting negative impacts. The United States have successfully decreased the local crime rate by implementing a so-called “zero tolerance” policy: the authorities and other bodies dealing with crime completely refuse to overlook any crime and immediately interfere with any unlawful behaviour. We have always gone to the opposite direction. Thus, the "real practice" in punishments and other criminal-related activities of the authorities is completely separated from the "official truth". (21)
• Family policy, i.e. supporting and helping families in crisis situations, is useful. When problems in families remain small, it reduces problem behavior and crime. Bad relationships, parental separation or a child growing up in an institution are risk factors on the road to crime, but if these problems can be prevented by supporting families, it reduces the likelihood of drifting down the wrong path. It makes more sense to try to help families at a stage when the problems are still relatively small and the children are growing. It's harder to do later.
Studies have shown that the structure and functionality of the family are of utmost importance when socialisation and return to society are being promoted; these, in turn, decrease or prevent juvenile delinquency. If parents neglect to raise their children, if parents use inconsistent forms of punishment or if the children find their family life disordered and disturbing, the children may turn to crime as young adults. This is especially true in families where one or both of the parents have committed a crime or crimes. The risk multiplies if the family has to live in severe poverty or in isolation. The susceptibility to crime can be best reduced or prevented by improving the opportunities to protect, supervise, manage and care for families:
1) Preventing teenage pregnancies 2) Supporting and counselling mothers during pregnancy and when their children are infants 3) Providing parent counselling 4) Offering pre-school education for families of poor children or children who have special needs 5) Offering support to the parents when the family is going through a rough patch 6) Developing strategies to prevent child abuse and keeping families together 7) Preventing teenage homelessness (22)
• Impact of the gospel. Forms of work that include the proclamation of the gospel, i.e. the spiritual side, are effective ways of preventing crime. The gospel can change a criminal, a terrorist, a drug addict, or a person separated from God in some other way. The more such people experience change, the more crime will decrease. Of course, the best thing would be for people to get a touch of God already in their childhood, e.g. through Sunday school and youth work, but God can change a person at a later stage as well. The condition is that the person himself is prone to change and ready to respond to the call of the gospel. Useful have been e.g. forms of work that include spiritual teaching for prisoners as well as related guidance and support. Likewise, forms of work focused on helping drug addicts and alcoholics have been successful. For example, in Teen Challenge centers, approx. 80% of those who have gone through the program have started a new, permanently drug-free life. When God sometimes has a stronger influence on society through revivals, many people's lives change there as well. It is not a Big Brother control society, of which there are examples in history, but that the vast masses of the people have changed internally. Charles G. Finney tells how this happened in the 19th century:
I have told that the moral situation changed greatly through this revival. The city was new, economically prosperous and enterprising but full of sin. The population was especially intelligent and ambitious but as the revival swept through the city by bringing large crowds of its most remarkable people, men and women, to conversion, there happened a very miraculous change concerning the order, peacefulness and morality. I had a talk with a lawyer many years later. He had been converted in this revival and was a general prosecutor in criminal cases. Because of this office, the criminal statistics were thoroughly familiar to him. He said about the time of this revival, “I have examined documents of criminal law and noticed a surprising fact: while our city has grown three times larger after the times of the revival, there has not been even a third of the indictments than there were before. So miraculous an effect did the revival have on our society.” (23)
DRUG USE is a relatively new thing in society, like the other things mentioned in this article. Of course, each of them has occurred in the past, but they have become more common especially during the last decades. Like alcoholism, drug abuse raises the crime rate. It is because under the influence of drugs, people's judgment fails and they commit crimes or cause harm to themselves. Another reason is that drug addicts often must resort to crime to get money to buy drugs, or they sell the drugs and thus spread the problem to new people. If they didn't have a drug problem and were in productive work, society would save considerable sums. The same is of course the case with alcohol, which is an even more common drug. In Finland alone, hundreds of millions of euros go into the costs it causes each year. What about soft and hard drugs? People usually try to separate them from each other and downplay the disadvantages of the former, but that is a dangerous policy. That's why we look at this topic and other related issues.
Supply. Separating soft drugs from hard drugs does not apply in the world of drugs. The same people sell both soft and hard drugs so a user will surely see both. Mixed usage is normal among drug addicts.
The gate theory still applies. Around 80–90% of all heroin addicts started with mild drugs. When mild drugs no longer have the effect they had earlier, addicts want to get something more powerful. David Wilkerson, who worked for years with thousands of drug addicts in downtown New York City, tells about his experiences:
Is marihuana dangerous? The answer is absolutely yes. 95% of the drug addicts we treat started with marihuana and gradually transferred to harder drugs. We ask every person who comes to us how they originally ended up on the slippery path of drugs, and almost all of them reply, "I once took a marijuana cigarette." (24)
Addiction. Like alcohol, nicotine, porn and many other things, drugs can also be addictive. Many people try to stop using such things because they will destroy one's joy of life in the long term. No alcoholic or porn addict is happy anymore when they are hooked and the habit has continued for years. That's why it's pointless to acquire new addictions if you can stay away from them.
The young woman sitting next to me told about her life and fears. She was afraid that her nerves would soon break. She had been taking drugs, mainly cannabis, for over ten years. Hers was a so-called “controlled habit”. However, there came a time when her nerves could no longer take it. She was afraid that her facade would tumble down, which had not happened yet. She lived in a detached house in the Helsinki Metropolitan region and none of the neighbours knew she had a problem with drugs. Listening to her, I thought that all the people who defend drugs as a “controlled habit” should hear this. (25)
Health. One of the phrases is that soft drugs are no more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol. However, this is not true because cannabis tar is stronger than tobacco tar and contains more carcinogens than tobacco. When the public health effects are already very expensive – lung cancer caused by tobacco is among the two most common cancers in several countries – it is pointless to acquire more public health costs.
Unborn children are at risk due to alcohol and drug use. Around 600 to 700 children damaged by alcohol are born in Finland every year. Similarly, as a result of amphetamine use, children have brain damage, heart defects, and cleft mouth and palate. For example, in Norway, there has been a law enabling involuntary treatment for drug-addicted mothers, and the experiences have been good. The women assigned to the treatment have subsequently found the solution to be good. They themselves haven't had the strength to get rid of drugs.
Availability. The easier the availability of drugs, the more problems and addiction related to their use. There are already enough young, marginalized drug users. The same has been found with alcohol policy. Every time the price has decreased and availability has become easier, it has increased problems related to alcohol use. This happened in Finland in 1969 and in Sweden in 1955. Crime, assaults and other problems related to excessive use clearly increased. In Finland, crime increased by 27% in 1969 and the growth continued in the following years. The reason was the arrival of medium strength beer in stores.
A sign to criminals. When drug legislation is relaxed, it is a sign to organized crime: "Here there is no law and no fear of punishment". Such an area attracts more drug sales and more crime, because the same people operate in more criminal sectors, e.g. in prostitution, pimping and arms trade.
Liberal legislation. Those countries that have had a loose drug policy and a positive attitude towards drugs have a completely different class of problems than those countries that have not acted in this way. Attempts have been made to alleviate the problems in these countries, e.g. by handing out heroin to heroin addicts, but that is extreme brutality. It binds a person to a lifelong drug addiction, from which it is difficult for him to break free. Such a policy also leads to the fact that it is even easier for people who use milder drugs to switch to stronger substances. It lowers the threshold to switch to them.
An experiment in a humane (!) and liberal drug policy … was made in Stockholm from 1965 to 1967. By virtue of a permit from the Swedish Medical Administration, doctors were able to write prescriptions of amphetamine and morphine to drug addicts. And that they did, to their hearts content – many doctors prescribed tens of thousands of doses. The going ended with a scandal and a disaster. Legal drugs written by doctors quickly flowed into the illegal street trade. Crime, which was supposed to end, increased. The number of people with severe drug problems exponentially increased. When hundreds of people had died because of prescribed drugs in the Stockholm Metropolitan Area, the experiment had to be cancelled post haste. The same happened as with communism: it was a great idea in theory but a poor idea in practice. (26)
Winner or loser? There is nothing ideal about drug use or cannabis cultivation. It is a life of escapism that young people with low self-esteem and who have difficulties adjusting to life find themselves in. They try to use drugs to eliminate feelings of inferiority or to escape from a challenging world. Alcoholism is a similar behavior.
There is hope for drug addicts. The most common way to treat drug addiction has been substitution treatments. Instead of narcotics, another narcotic such as subutex or methadone is offered. The following points are problematic in these treatments:
• Treatment results are poor • Treatments cost millions of euros every year • A large proportion of drug addicts receiving drug substitution treatment use other drugs at the same time • Addiction does not disappear, but has been replaced by another kind of addiction • Several people who have become addicted to substitute substances have died of overdose • They kill the desire to get better because drug users know they can resort on these treatments
Although the results have been poor from previous treatments, there is still hope for drug users. Jesus, who is the Son of God, can also free a person from the slavery of drugs (John 8:36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.). David Wilkerson, who worked for years with drug addicts in New York, tells his own experience:
We specialize in desperate cases and will reject no-one, although we worked at first only with teenagers. Those who need help come to us voluntarily, usually when they have lost all hope. (...) We simply believe in God's power of breaking the Shackles of habit and also making the Victory thus achieved last through faith. I'm not interested in whether other professional organizations fighting drug addiction accept my method or not. I know that drug addicts accept it. I challenge anyone in the world to bring a hundred people cured from drug addiction to the same event, as we have done. As of yet, nobody has responded to this challenge. We can present to you thousands of former drug addicts who were completely freed from drugs and filled with the power of God. (27)
REFERENCES:
1. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 55,112,113 2. Matti Joensuu: avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12,13 3. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 54 4. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 126 5. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 123 / Graglia p. 2, 127 6. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 140 7. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 150 8. Nicky Cruz: David Wilkersonin viimeinen varoitus (David Wilkerson: A Final Warning), p. 84,85 9. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään, p. 134 10. Matti Joensuu: avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 19 11. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 21,22 12. Erwin W. Lutzer: Miksi helvetti on (Coming to Grips with Hell), p. 24 13. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132 14. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 140 15. Paavo Hiltunen: Ja maa tuli täyteen väkivaltaa, p. 20, 72,73 16. Ritva Santavuori: Rouva syyttäjän paluu, p. 26,27 17. John Graham – Trevor Bennett: Rikoksentorjunnan strategioita Euroopassa ja Pohjois-Amerikassa, toimittanut ja uudistanut Mikael Scheinin, p. 85 18. Reino Sirén & Martti Lehti: Musta maaliskuu, p. 15 19. Dada Maheshvarananda: Kapitalismin jälkeen, Proutin näkemys uudenlaisesta yhteiskunnasta (After Capitalism – Prout’s Vision for a New World), p. 154 20. David Wilkerson: Jeesus-kansalaisen kypsymisen käsikirja (Jesus Person Maturity Manual), p. 93 21. Matti Virén, Matti Wiberg: Kallis rikollisuus, järkevät vastatoimet rikollisuudelle, p. 80 22. John Graham – Trevor Bennett: Rikoksentorjunnan strategioita Euroopassa ja Pohjois-Amerikassa, toimittanut ja uudistanut Mikael Scheinin, p. 1,2 23. Charles G. Finney: Ihmeellisiä herätyksiä, p. 245, 246 24.David Wilkerson: Hei saarnamies, sä pääset läpi (Hey, Preach… You Are Comin’ Through), p. 78 25. Liisa Tallgren: Tarjolla huominen, p. 121 26. Ritva Santavuori: Rouva syyttäjän paluu, p. 208, 209 27. David Wilkerson: Kukkaislapsia löytöretkellä (Purple-violet Squish), p. 9
The Last days. Bible prophecy refers to the last days as well as the coming of Jesus. Read how these prophecies are currently being fulfilled
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
The Last days. Bible prophecy refers to the last days as well as the coming of Jesus. Read how these prophecies are currently being fulfilled
|
