Each era, in its popular context has its dominant ethical pattern (strong or weak) that seems fitting to the majority of citizens, or at least dominates in the attention of citizens and the pundits, some of whom are crying in the wilderness. The dominant pattern forms the social situational ethics during any given period. It is not the only standard or even the majority standard, but seems to be in the reporting, and by which others are checked in degree of acceptance and practice. Each might be identified with some popular identification symbol, and elucidated in the context of a prevailing attitude and practice. Currently we have, in the dominant group, what I would call the Blue Jean era. It is largely humanistic, casual, partly hedonistic, contradictory (or paradoxical, contenders might argue), resistant to some high historical influences and experience – so we might extend identification markers. Like all humanistic patterns, it has both affirmative and negative factors in context and influence. Full analysis would take many pages, and might miss some of the meaning we accent here in the reference. It may be changing even as I write.
One finds pattern changes repeated in history. From the several references I have read about Benjamin Franklin in Paris during the American Revolution, when he was busy raising money and support for the American cause, he gained attention not only because he was admired as a scientist, but because he dressed like a Quaker. He was different. In the days of powdered wigs, he permitted his fringe of hair to grow long, and his bald pate to be exposed. His clothing was plain. With the carnality of many leaders in the church and government, and hedonism of the writers and some leading lights in France (who resisted Christianity), and the miseries of the general population, the culture might have been identified as the Privileged Culture – highly permissive to the privileged, closed to the masses of peasant culture. We do not know how much the Quaker garb appealed to the French masses, a style that may have played a part in the French Revolution, and the loss of Louis XIV’s powder-wigged head. Mankind is clumsy. Even the desire for right is corrupted. Franklin may have been an important catalyst for the peasantry.
What is the point of the discussion? We jump in with a question, Are we to be jerked around from generation to generation with popular opinions about the context of our lives? As a child, I held as a hero, Charles Lindbergh. He represented youth and a humanistic dominance affecting the new generation.
I later found out he praised the regime of Hitler, until WWII fell on the nations. John Paul Sartre honored Stalin and the Communist experiment. Bits and pieces were picked up by the masses. It is always so. The old must go. To go back to the French writers in the late 18th century, the lives many lived were, in their way, much like that of the French court, hedonistic. The Populist turns away but finds no real improvement. During the French Revolution, falling soon after the American, religious leaders held up the call to faith but failed in the matter of practice. They did not hold and carry over the concept of wholeness in God reflected in the moral context of society, and a practice of faith relating to righteous culture. In its contexts, secularism diminishes God and some of his ideals for human habitat.
The loss is common in virtually every generation. To counter it, God provided the church as both a source for knowledge about citizenship in his kingdom, and the requirements of that citizenship. They suggest guidelines for earth society. With all the scholarly offerings, prophetic warnings, and favorable modeling, done by any people or church, or any culture, only that which fulfills the biblical directive can accomplish what God wants mankind to accomplish, in culture, government, and personal conduct. French Sophisticated, or Blue Jean, or any other culture won’t cut it in the long run. Public life is never practiced in its rightful rhythm. A different creation, from a different creator, might be served by wholly human cultures. God’s design is in righteousness, in any and all generations. The review of the theme in Scripture is impressive, as in Proverbs 14:34 and refined by numerous other passages like Romans, Chapters 8 through 10. The Apostle Paul makes a startling statement in Romans 8:10 – the Spirit is life because of righteousness. In this he related righteousness to solutions. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020