Salt losing its savor...
This is Dad's column from the June 1963 issue of Eternity magazine. Dad chose the title when the column was first published.
Men have long been claiming to hold to Gospel-centrality while running in terror from any declaration of God's holiness and authority. But now, instead of procaliming God's moral absolutes, Inter-Varsity staff workers here on the campus of Indiana University promote homosexual perversion. (TB)
* * *
This year, speaking to college students (as an Inter-Varsity staff member)—especially in dormitory and fraternity discussions—I’ve been asked once question again and again. It almost always takes this form: “Why is premarital intercourse wrong?”
Often there are explanatory or qualifying clauses: “—with the girl you’re going to marry some day;” “—when it seems to work out well in parts of Europe where it’s pretty commonly accepted;” “—if neither of you sees anything wrong with it;” “—since he may be shipped overseas any minute;” “—when it seems, like the psych professor says, to be merely a normal response to a human appetite.”
Those clauses reveal the more basic question, one that is foundational to the Christian religion: Are there such things as moral absolutes, or is everything relative, subject to the conditions of time and place and opinion? The latter view, probably held (consciously or unconsciously) by a majority on today’s academic scene, was expressed by the scientist Sir Julian Huxley in a recent issue of Nature...
magazine:In adapting our old educational system to our new vision, much cargo will have to be jettisoned—once-noble but now moldering myths, shiny but useless aphorisms, Utopian but unfounded speculations, nasty projections of our prejudices and repression. . .Children are not born with a load of original sin derived from a “Fall”. . .There are no Absolutes of Truth or Virtue.
Now I believe in academic freedom of expression, but I find it hard to understand why a scientific magazine should lend itself to an attack upon the Judeo-Christian religion. Even harder for me to understand is the silence of qualified and respected scientists who are Christians, in the face of such an attack. Why, in scientific publications or in classrooms, is there so seldom a rebuttal of such opinions? The failure of Christians in Academe to avail themselves of the prerogatives of academic freedom may go far toward explaining why the historic Christian faith is no longer a live option to the educated person. “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
But the general silence among Christians about moral absolutes today, both in and out of the university community, is disturbing—like the small lump, alarming out of proportion to its size, to one who fears a malignant tumor. This vague disturbance was expressed several years ago by an editorialist in Christianity and Crisis:
For about a generation now there has been a growing tendency among Christian intellectuals to eschew and condemn moralism. ..One of the things which attracted the ancient Romans to Christianity was the rigorous Christian morality, especially regarding sex, and the self-discipline of the Christian home.
Doubtless many of the intellectuals of the Roman world branded these simple Christians as being too simple and too moralistic. I suspect that if Jesus, or Paul, or one of the early Church fathers were to preach in America today, many Christian intellectuals would accuse them of the same. I do not know for sure. That is what disturbs me. But at the risk of being a superficial moralist I raise these questions: Have Christians sold too many hostages to the modern vogue of relativism? And where do we take our stand, particularly on the matters of sex and the preservation of the Christian home?
Where do we take our stand?
On the ground of moral absolutes: as a convinced Christian I have no other answer. Jesus Christ and Paul and Moses and Elijah have determined our position. When the Christian Church yields to relativism, the salt loses its savor, the world loses its light.
Our temptation, especially with the unconverted, is to bypass the absolute demands of a Holy God, ineffably pure, and “just preach the gospel.” For we know that men cannot achieve moral purity and legal justification before coming to Christ.
But there’s a difference between saying, “Come to Jesus just as you are. Don’t wait until you’re better;” and saying, “It doesn’t matter what God is like, what His standards are.”
God dealt with His people, in the childhood of the race, by revealing absolute moral law. Jesus Christ began His ministry of introducing the Kingdom by confirming the law and defining God’s ultimate standards. St. Paul said that in his personal experience, sin, by the commandments of the law, became exceedingly sinful.
Should we deal with our generation otherwise? Is not the present uncertainty about moral absolutes (including premarital intercourse) one result of introducing boys and girls, men and women, to grace without prior exposure to law? We hedge on the demands of absolute law at the risk of undermining absolute grace; when we lighten law we cheapen grace.
In a fraternity lounge or on the sand at Fort Lauderdale, we must not bypass the moral absolutes that include our hearers under the judgment of God. To do so is not merely to cast our pearls before swine; it is to gain an audience and lose our mission.




Comments
Tim, do you have the reference for the Huxley article in Nature that was mentioned? If so, could you provide a link? I could probably find it, but figured I'd ask before digging.
Thanks!
We don't have the reference. Tim would be grateful if you found it, though.
This is what I found as a footnote, referencing the quote, in a paper by Stewart Edward Kreitzer, entitled "Ernst Mayr as 'the Darwin of the 20th Century': Defining a Discipline While Defending A Faith"
Julian Huxley, “Education in the Humanist Revolution,” Fawley Foundation Lecture (UK: University of
Southhampton, 1962), quoted in J. R. Baker, “Julian Sorell Huxley. 22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975,”
Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 22 (1976): 231
(Hope this helps.)
"I find it hard to understand why a scientific magazine should lend itself to an attack upon the Judeo-Christian religion...."
There's no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian religion." If your father believed in a moral equivalence between Judaism and Christianity, perhaps he should have explained the proposition before a church court.
The fact that this obvous appeal to religious syncretism never raised any red flags is one reason "Eternity" is now forgotten, as its successor "World" will be in a few years.
>> a moral equivalence between Judaism and Christianity
No, I understand "the Judeo-Christian religion" to be speaking of Christianity in continuity back to the calling of the Hebrews with Abraham. Biblical writers speak of this continuity:
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets"
- Acts 24:14 NASB
At the point in history when the Jews rejected the Christ, they broke off from the true religion and you're right, there is no "Judeo-Christian religion" between Christianity and these apostate ones. But that's not what Joe Bayly was talking about.
It is instructive for discerning the evolution of the moral landscape in America (and among those who name the name of Christ) to compare Joe Bayly's colume with this report from CNN's religion blog:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
which reports survey data suggesting that single Christians indulge in fornication only slightly less than non-Christian single adults. Joe Bayly tells us he was continually answering the question "Why is premarital intercourse wrong?” It's a question that makes no sense, unless it's already understood by the questioners (we assume they were more often non-Christians than otherwise?) that Christianity prohibits premarital intercourse. The CNN religion blog report, if we credit it, shows us that such a conviction is almost completely missing within those whom they survey identified as "unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29)."
Joe Bayly puts his finger on a denial of moral absolutes. That would apply today, except for noting that the radical moral relativism today is probably a more advanced form of this sort of spiritual rot than what he was confronting on college capuses in 1963.
What's interestin g to me, however, is the CNN blogger's contention that the retreat of marriage from the social fabirc of young adults is just as much a contributor to fornication as the cause Joe Bayly was speaking to almost 50 years ago. "Today, it’s not unusual to meet a Christian who is single at 30 - or 40 or 50, for that matter. So what do you tell them? Keep waiting?"
My 21-year old daughter recently became engaged. One temptation she now battles comes both from values which she has "picked up" from the world, and from challenges to her early engagement (!) from her Christian friends). And that challenge is this: that she is squandering the fulfillment attending single adulthood by marrying too young.
Joe Bayly's analysis may be complemented by a different development which was likely embryonic in his day, namely that marriage itself is a threat to one's personal development if entered into too quickly, by which the culture means before one is 30 years old.
Yes, Fr. Bill, we are all about personal development and the presentation of our excellent selves to men and to God. We look pretty good to ourselves, and God's holiness doesn't even begin to compute. We've got it all backwards. I grew up in a Christian home, and we went to church whenever the doors were open. Yet I still remember clearly when I was in high school, and our youth leader asked me if I was good enough to be accepted by God. My hesitant answer was, "I guess so." He immediately responded, not gently, "You are not. None of us are." God bless that man. That was the beginning for me.
#6
"Today it's not unusual to have Christians who are single at 30-40-50" (Quoting the CNN blog).
How many more singles do we have in the church now than, say, thirty or forty years ago? I'm not old enough to give a robust answer, tho' I suspect that even then, it was many more men than women. Would welcome insight on this.
As for 'squandering the fulfilment attending single adulthood by marrying too young'. I think this outlook can be traced back to a misquote of St Paul by youth leaders and other Christian leaders who: (a) know that many of their people won't be married for a while, if at all, and so (b) think that they need to wind down the expectations which have already built up. However, again, would value others' insights on this.
Sorry, "many more women than men". D'oh!
Add new comment