Month: December 2005

The Dallas Morning News ran a recent article called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. Yesterday we discussed Peter Singer’s ideas about the sanctity of life. Today we tee up the topic of monogamy. Our “expert” on the subject is a gentleman named Jacques Attalli. Here is his opening salvo…

“Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal.”

Okay…it has officially happened. I have now become that grumpy old man that I used to ridicule. Mr.Attalli had my blood boiling after his first 29 words. Not bad. First of all, marriage is much more than a “useful social convention”. Marriage is the God ordained structure for family and societal health. And in my primitive circles monogamy is not rarely practiced. There are couples all over the world that have the maturity and the emotional health to remain in a monogamous and loving relationship.

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,  and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”  Mark 10:6-9 (NIV)

I believe there is a spiritual dimension involved in the sexual union that makes it more than an episode on Animal Planet.

Mr.Attalli would disagree.

“Just as most societies now accept successive love relationships (they do?), soon we will acknowledge the legality and acceptability of simultaneous love.”

Somebody help me here. What in the wide, wide world of sports are successive love relationships? Perhaps another word to describe a man involved in “successive love relationships” would be…oh let’s see…jerk. And the day that we acknowledge “simultaneous love” as the standard is the day that we have lost the battle. I will celebrate (and that is the right word) my 30th wedding anniversary next July. It has not always been easy. We had some really rough times. But I am so grateful that we persevered. Something happens when a couple grows toward each other. When both parties give up the selfish expectation that the other person is responsible for their happiness then the biblical concept can begin to happen. My wife and I are experiencing that mystical journey of the two becoming one and I am more in love with her today than I was 30 years ago. There is a richness and depth to our relationship that could never be found in “simultaneous love”.

Attalli has anticipated the battle with dinosaurs like me.

“The demise of monogamy will not come without a struggle (#$%& right!). All the churches will seek to forbid it, especially for women. (How about letting the women speak for themselves Jacque? Perhaps they would have a different take on your simultaneous love idea. I know that my bride would beg to differ).

Attalli sees that ultimately the “battle” will be won.

“For a while, they (those backward church people) will hold the line. But individual freedom (aka selfishness), once again, will triumph. The revolution will begin in Europe (surprise), America will follow (sadly likely), and the rest of the world will eventually come around.”

Here is the truly heartbreaking part of Mr.Attalli’s vision.

“Relationships with children will be radically different, (No kidding. Son, meet my friend Poopsie. She is my current successive love relationship) financial relationships will be disrupted and how and where we live will change. To be sure, it will take decades for the change to be complete, and yet, if we look around, it is already here. Beneath our hypocrisies – in movies, novels, and music – the shape of our future is visible.”

If Hollywood and the music industry defines our future we have truly hit cultural rock bottom and with a sickening thud. Do any of these elite thinkers ever visit a real community in a far away place like Iowa? I believe the results of a culture defined by movies, novels, and music would be devastating. (Told you I have achieved grumpy old man status). May we call a spade a spade? A large percentage of our narcissistic culture is no longer willing to sacrifice in marriage or as parents. The trail of wounded men, women, and children left behind by philosophies like Mr.Attalli’s is epidemic. And yes, the Christian church has not consistently modeled God’s ideal. But circumventing the truth does not change the truth. We are wired for a relationship with God and for intimate relationship with our mates. Tsunamis of testosterone does not change that truth. As King Solomon noted there is nothing new under the sun. In the book of Judges the people rejected the standards of God.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Judges 21:25 (NASB77)

Doing what is right in your own eyes does not make it right. I love my wife. I intend to remain monogamous until death do us part. Monogamy is not on life support. But I cannot say the same about the values of our culture.

Recently the Dallas Morning News ran an op-ed feature called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. The subtitle confidently proclaimed that by 2040 many of the things we take for granted will no longer exist. I quickly scanned the list to see if major league baseball’s designated hitter would be an idea that would not endure. Sadly, that did not make the list.

The list was a mixture of intriquing and frightening. According to these experts monogamy will be a quaint ideal from a less enlightened era and it will no longer be the norm. I am glad I will be dead before my wife finds that out. Another predicts the demise of the British Monarchy. But the one that rocked my world was seeing the number one item on the list penned by a man named Peter Singer. I believe he is one of the most dangerous people on the planet. That seems like a pretty bold statement because he is a rather average looking academician at Princeton University. He is ironically the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton and his ideas are widely accepted by those with bigger brains than you and me.

Let me quote some of Mr. Singer’s predictions for the future about the sanctity of life. My thoughts are italicized.

“During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments. By 2040, (here comes a good part) it may be may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”

Since there is a good chance I will have checked out by 2040 I am considering forming a secret organization to maintain the “rump” of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists. Let me know if you would like to be a charter member of the “Rumps of the Know-Nothings”. For Monty Python fans we will be the knights who say no. But in all seriousness it is dismaying for Mr.Singer to dismiss all who believe in the sanctity of life as know nothings. I believe that Peter Singer knows a lot. I just believe he is wrong. Could he not extend at least that much courtesy to me and the other rumps? Continuing with Mr. Singer’s piece…

“When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proved indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life.”

Who determines “personhood”? If it is always in the hands of the family you can get very different views. If it is in the hands of the government I shudder. Does a doctor determine “personhood”? I have a very personal stake in this debate. Surprisingly, so does Peter Singer. More on that in a moment. Singer makes an interesting concession that may be the future argument about the beginning of life.

“We will understand that even if the life of a human organism (note the terminology) begins at conception, the life of a person – that is, at minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness – does not begin so early.”

My cynical side reacts that if we took out everyone without a level of self-awareness we would thin the herd significantly. But the tacit admission (sort of) that there is no other logical point except conception for the beginning of life is interesting. The argument now becomes the elusive point at which the “organism” achieves “personhood”. And that is a frightening judgement to make apart from some standard.

Now for the personal side of the argument. Twenty years ago a daughter was born into our family. Katie was born with a birth defect that caused an absence of brain development. By Mr.Singer’s standards she was not a “person” because she could not achieve some level of self-awareness. According to Mr.Singer Katie should have been aborted or euthanized after birth (yes, he advocates that) because she had no potential for personhood. But the fourteen month life of Katie was an amazing blessing for our family. In retrospect I shudder at the prospect of aborting her life. Yet it might have seemed the right thing to do in the emotion of the moment. Katie’s inspiring story is told in full in When Bad Christians Happen to Good People. But my reaction to Katie’s life is just the emotional response of a religious rump…right? Let’s see what happens when Mr.Singer had to apply his theories to real life.

Peter Singer’s mother is suffering from Alzeiheimers. By his own definition she no longer has the measure of self-awareness that defines personhood. So how has Mr.Singer responded? Like a person who deep in his being believes in the dignity of life. He has poured thousands of dollars into her care when there can be no return for the greater good of society. That money would be far better spent on those who have societal value and not just, as Mr. Singer described, possessing species membership. This is money wasted in Singer’s ultilitarian worldview.

Peter Singer addressed the dilemma. “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult. Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it’s different when it’s your mother.” Now it is personal and Singer’s ideas don’t work. Peter Singer’s mother has value and deserves to be cared for until her last natural breath. Our daughter had value and deserved the same. That is my worldview. I can live with mine.