Part 5 – Progress or Peril?:
Examining Paul’s Description of Our Day
By James R. Birrell
Read Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
“The moral life begins with renunciation.” Phillip Reiff
What happens to society, especially our children, when they are no longer held in check by the invisible chords of cultural prohibitions? They develop a void in the meaning of religion and patriotism. They self-define in the world’s terms (accomplishment, accumulation, or distraction), and we risk losing them to all three. In the process, even the best of children can become disobedient, unthankful and unholy.
Changing Culture, Changing Childhood
Like many of you, I did not dare get into trouble as a child. A phone call from an upset teacher, for example, meant that I was in trouble both at school and at home. And then there was the “village.” I once skipped an afternoon of classes during high school and came home early, only to have my neighbor call the police on me.
The 1950’s American “village” of my childhood had, overall, real clarity about right and wrong (too bad so many of its children rejected that clarity at college in the ’60’s), and enough concern for me to act in my best interest, as if I were one of their own; we had community. Consequently, I feared adult authority, whereas too many adults today seem to fear the growing power of children. In fairness, children do grow more powerful in their disobedience. If you have had a rebellious child, you understand this.
I did not dare to disrespect my father no matter how I may have felt at the time. And disrespecting my mother was unthinkable; my father would have “handled it.” He was raised in a more harsh Calvinist fashion, founded on fear and obedience. The “train up a child” idea ruled his era, which sometimes invited and excused abuse. Thus, the stern Calvinist parenting of the early 1900’s begged a contrasting platform for reform.
Unable to resist, Leftist socialist activists promoted a child-centered, religion-hating, liberal atheist ideal called progressivism; this movement was a core component of the revolution of the ’60’s, and is still a dominant social and political force. In fairness, others define it more tastefully- progressivism is a humanist and egalitarian ideal, honoring difference, individuality, tolerance, and nonjudgmentalism.
By the time I became a father in 1981, the world had changed; a socialist, humanist and atheist revolution had occurred. Redefining adulthood also meant redefining childhood. New child rearing practices had been introduced into society by what Robert Bork calls the “New Class” that reflected the new progressive age of promoting old progressive ideas. The New Class worked to make America a more intellectually “liberated” country free from the constraints of linear thought and moral absolutes they opposed.
These cultural socialist engineers had their own moral absolutes and the religious fanaticism necessary for upholding them; the Left is as fierce as any Calvinist devotee (right winger) they accuse. If you doubt this, oppose political correctness and you will discover harsh intolerance and judgmentalism in the service of this new nonjudgmental humanist morality and order.
By 1981 progressivist views of childhood, and therefore child-rearing and raising were gaining momentum, thanks to the academic elite among the New Class. Their chief inspiration (among others), John Dewey- a controversial figure- especially among some LDS contemporaries (e.g., Ezra Taft Benson, Hugh Nibley, and others), redefined childhood using socialist humanist (progressivist) arguments. The basis of these arguments is atheism (Noebel, 1991). Dewey was no Christian; he was no C.S. Lewis.
Neither were others of his ilk. Humanist radicals used sympathetic judges to remove Christ, prayer and bible reading from schools in order to protect the child and advance the revolution; the public’s overwhelming support of religion had to be recast as the tyranny of the majority. Thanks to these socialist humanist judges who used the authority of the Constitution to disregard it, a new America was born.
It’s our own fault, really. Christians didn’t get it right. The fact of racism (or the disenfranchisement of minorities) was the Achilles tendon the Left attacked, all our goodness notwithstanding. By stigmatizing White, Christian America and western virtues as racist, the ideals of socialism and atheism were gradually imposed upon a condemned society and its ideology/theology. Dissatisfaction created disenchantment, disaffection and disenfranchisement among white youth who wanted to avoid the stain of racism by promoting liberal ideals, or at least not getting in the way of the revolution.
It did not seem to matter to them that the virtues the Left rejected were the very virtues that caused Christians to confront their duplicity in the ’60’s, and get behind Dr. King and the movement for equal rights. No, the civil rights movement was not looking for redemption for White America, or even fairness; it was about advancing the new order- the revolution. The stigma of white racism powers this new order, and silences opposition with accusation and litigation.
The new order is also maintained through the misuse of “public” education, which really does not reflect much of the American “public” today, in terms of beliefs and values. As an educator, I have never known a time when the public felt more disconnected from school administration and policy; this is not unintentional. It is essential to advancing the revolution; Marx believed that the state was the better parent- in many ways so does the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA even helps teachers confront “right wing” (oppressive) parents; what does this suggest? Religious parents oppress.
The roots of this revolution run deep. Dewey and Darwin may be dead, but they speak as “one from the dust” in our schools. This was Dewey’s dream, along with other fellow travelers, to see his socialist ideals inspire a “new social order” (Dewey, 1934). “We are in for some kind of socialism,” predicted Dewey, “call it by whatever name we please, and no matter what it will be called when it is realized (Dewey, 1930). I know what I call it; put lipstick on a pig and call it Monique, and it is still a pig!
These “modern” ideals have made their way into the various child industries, psychology, education, law, and politics. The media promote them, as well. In fact, we are awash in atheist secularism, marketed as a celebration of freedom and difference and pursuit of equality and social justice. Thus, as Elder Faust warned BYU students in a 1994 devotional, evil would soon be more brazen and subtle. We would have to become ever more skilled at discerning it. This won’t be easy in a day when truth would be disconnected from centers of learning (see 2 Timothy 3: 7).
The darkness of progressivism will continue to subtly teach the child to pursue, without regard for right or wrong, their rights to expression, involvement, experimentation, and self-determination- all on the child’s terms (though carefully but heavily influenced by humanist ideals). And the growing Children’s Rights movement in this country will increasingly give them the legal clout to do so, against any of your objections. It is already happening.
These are sobering times to be a parent; still, have many children. The Church needs children who are not afraid to “bring the world His truth” because they have been raised by parents who do not fear evil, for they live in green pastures, beside the still waters.
Still waters and green pastures can be our lot, despite the stirring seas around us. True, we live in perilous times, and perilous times leave a legacy of cope more than hope. Our hope is not in the secular ideas or political masters of this ruined world (see D&C 135: 6).
In summary, here’s how the ’60’s left a legacy of ruin, as reported by Collier and Horowitz (1989):
The Sixties.was a time when the “system” –that collection of values that provide guidelines for societies as well as individuals– was assaulted and mauled. As one center of authority after another was discredited under the New Left offensive, we radicals claimed that we murdered to create. But while we wanted revolution, we didn’t have a plan. The decade ended with a big bang that made society into a collection of splinter groups, special interest organizations and newly minted “minorities,” whose only common belief was that America was guilty and untrustworthy (p.15).
This is post ’60’s America, fractured, divided, governed by “special interests,” and suspicious of its own legacy and value; we are a sad, divided, and vulnerable society, viewed by our enemies as weak and disunited. We are a nation “marching toward self-destruction,” said President Hinckley in his recent speech at the World Leadership Conference (January 10, 2004). But to the secular mind, this “march” is only a victory parade, a celebration of the fruits of the revolution- of secular progress.
What the rest of us may see, hopefully, and be more vocal about, is the tragedy of progressivism and liberalism. These ideals brought too much of the “self” into society by selling selfishness as a right, and by eliminating those Christian virtues that were in place to hold back narcissism, self-absorption, and individualism- the antithesis of obedience, gratitude and holiness.
On Narcissism and Sustained Adolescence
I have a bit more to say on the matter, including some suggestions. One of the social realities of today’s ecstatic liberalism is rampant narcissism; narcissism sustains and extends adolescence. Adolescence is defined by an unwillingness to defer immediate gratification, accept personal (and adult) responsibility, and sacrifice self-interest to the needs of others for higher purposes and holier principles; pride is adolescent.
It is also the process of maintaining unnecessary dependence upon others, while living for oneself. Dependence is not justified just because an adult child is living an otherwise good and decent life at home; besides, a child seeking entitlements may be good for all the wrong reasons. Being an adult means that you can make it on your own in the world.
Liberation’s children are taking longer to enter adulthood. For example, adult children are moving home after college graduation at “staggering rates” (Hart, 2003)- 65 percent according to the MacArthur Foundation’s Network on Transitions to Adulthood. There are many reasons for this. Some say it is harder for them to live independently, given our economy. But is the problem our economy, our society, or just stupidity?
Here’s what I mean. Since one of the fruits of liberalism is narcissism, a nanny state needs dependent children. Narcissism sustains liberalism; it is a co-dependent relationship that empowers those wanting goods and those wanting power. Parents can act this way. We can be just as socialist in our parenting. In progressive parenting, we provide our children with safety nets for everything, like a benevolent government. But this is not compassion, and it violates the law of the harvest and other principles. If you don’t believe me, sit in a field some day and see how long it takes God to feel so sorry for you that He brings you your favorite sandwich and soda.
The more we do for our children, the less they really do for themselves; they may lose any sense of proportion or benefit that accompanies struggle. Our government leaders of all parties are intelligent enough to capitalize on this human frailty for their own purposes; vote for me and I will provide for you. This is not benevolent government, but a misuse of it. And it makes for stupid parenting, as well.
We must be smarter. Otherwise our children will come to see a nanny socialist government as merely a reflection of the parenting style they have at home; and they will learn to work our “system.” Here’s what I mean. A wealthy LDS leader I know offered his teenage daughter a new car if she would be more obedient and helpful. What kind of thinking is this? Do certain “groups” in America get rewards for bad (or mediocre) behavior? Affirmative action, especially in parenting violates so many divine principles.
Moreover, I recently chaperoned a church dance where one of the stake youth leaders excused his daughter from the dress standard he helped to set. Do we ask for special privilege or treatment in society by virtue of our status?
Conclusion: A Call for Greater Thoughtfulness
Please don’t spoil your children. Teach them to work and sacrifice, and even go without some lesser things, which will not be easy. Entire markets are aimed at youth of all ages and stages. And daily consider your ways, and the degree to which you are defined by accumulation, accomplishment, distraction or even fashion, and especially the media.
With all that is available to us to read, write, or discuss, why is it that so many LDS people I know have more movies than books? And why aren’t we more discerning about the movies and programs we watch? I have walked out of many a movie to make a point, most recently a progressivist piece called “Freaky Friday.” I know what you are thinking, “What is he talking about? It was a funny movie!”
Consider the progressive messages it sends, the dangerous values of sibling egalitarianism between parent and child, and all within a liberal culture where teens pursue sexual relationships, including, if only temporarily with adults. Men are poor role models, if even present. Women are smart and in positions of power (or victims of men). Children are disobedient, disrespectful and demanding. Little or nothing is sacred.
That was “Freaky Friday,” an impossible fairy tale that feeds the sentiments and funny bone, but not the intellect or soul. Guarding my thoughts means that I cannot surrender my mind, especially to entertainment. I have to tolerate much in this world that offends my sense of propriety; however, I do not have to seek it out as entertainment.
Besides, who has to pay to see this kind of behavior in society; it is everywhere. If my children see me laughing at the foolishness of liberation’s children in any approving way, even if it is just a movie, what message am I sending them about the seriousness of these perils?
References
Bork, R. (2003). Coercing virtue: The worldwide rule of judges. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute
Collier, P., & Horowitz, D. (1989). Destructive generation: Second thoughts on the ’60’s. New York: Summit Books.
Dewey, J. (1934). Education and the Social Order. New York: League for Industrial Democracy, p. 10.
Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism, Old and New. New York, p. 119.
Hart, B. (January 19, 2004). Adults still with their parents should grow up. Deseret Morning News, AA8. Copied from Scripps Howard News Service.
Hymowitz, Kay (2003). Liberation’s Children: Parents and kids in a postmodern age. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Noebel, D. (1991). Understanding the times: The religious worldviews of our day and the search for truth. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
