A free society finds it difficult to deal with addictions. It becomes even more difficult when the society lightens its views: on values, on cultural and educational context, on family life and solidarity, and on the matter of self-discipline (self-control). The idea of addiction implies there is a loss of self-control, and that the addiction has become so influential that self-control will be difficult to find (or rediscover) and install for the individual who is addicted. Some areas of professional life seem more vulnerable to personal addictions, like drugs and alcohol, than others. Entertainers, for example, seem to be caught more commonly in these than business persons. Business persons may become addicted to money (greed). Sexual addictions cross all contexts. Society is deluged with sordid stories from leaders of business, government, entertainment, and even religion. The scenarios are accented in the public interest for failure, for excitement, for tragic directions of mankind – loss of control and distortion of maturity. There is little room acknowledged for the ordinary, the orderly, the peaceful, and the good. Religious and secular analysts deplore general preoccupation with aberrations from the good. The good is supposed to be the ordinary.
Space for this Page is limited to values. How does a largely secular society, in a pluralistic context decide on values? How does it find values in a secular context for education that has largely disavowed responsibility for values other than those related to its own disciplines? (In some locales even those are ephemeral.) Why is cheating on an examination wrong, if all cheating is not wrong? There must be an ethical standard that works through principles. Why is addiction wrong, if there is no value understanding or agreement related to it? Some human activity that once indicated incarceration for broken law by offenders is becoming approved conduct. What changed meaning? Are values evolving and changing?
Education may be addressing some of the easy stuff and evading some of the difficult. The easy relates to the laws of nature so that two pencils plus two pencils equals four pencils; or this procedure is better than that for doing this work; or this energy thrust is great enough to escape the force of gravity. Once learned the material becomes rather simple to those taught about them. But, what have we done for life and human nature? What is better or worse in the conduct of a human being? If we find the answer, how do we gain the affirmative over the negative? What is real and what is fiction? The real relates to truth, and the fiction to imagination. After a century of rather careful study about what is important to a society, we have an increasing number of children born out of wedlock with the statistical threat of an uncertain future; a divorce rate shockingly high; a too-high percentage of youth truant from proper development for adulthood; and, a conflict of statistics of marriages staying together that show quite uneven performance, in solidarity (relationships), in idealism for family (unity and love) and its future (social meaning for good). All this, and a great deal more, relates to learning that seeks successful life in the confines of mortality.
So it is left for religion to take on the hard stuff, that asks students of life and nature to take on responsibility for right action and function, and understanding that leads to wisdom. This must be done in a context of differentials like secularism, volunteerism, funding limits, lower and higher benefits, professional life and relationships, and the like – – including the variant conducts generated from human nature that may be in support or conflict with the order of God. For the Christian this last is found in careful interpretations, when rightly ordered and understood that find little objection from the masses who might take God’s solutions – without God in them. What can be wrong with righteous conduct growing out of love, responsibility, freedom, education (growth in truth to application of maturity), unselfish leadership, useful labor, needed service to others, respect for nature, and the dignity of all persons? In sum, this is what Christian Scripture teaches for common grace. Truth is the same for all in earth life meaning. There is risk in all this. That risk is that we will not likely make the agreed-upon standard work on our own. Addictions of the masses sabotage even the respectful ideals of secularism. There are promises of God to assist us. They ask for humble faith in the context of life. There follows self-control, prayer and social challenge. Human aspirations for society are largely found in Christian idealism. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020