22. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

Finding a higher social purpose

Morality is not instinctive – but must be
        taught

Ultimately ... the vital role of moral
        leadership

Christianity as the foundation of
        Western civilization

A call to renew the covenant with God

The textual material on page below is drawn directly from my work A Moral History of Western Society © 2024, Volume Two, pages 443-470.

A society is basically just a moral structure designed to defend and promote a particular people The study of social dynamics is not a new thing. Since man himself set out to find answers to why his social world was shaped and acted the way it did, he actually has been asking the great moral question: is this the way society is supposed to work? And there is an amazing amount of speculation on this matter – debates on the subject that reach even back into very ancient times. The Greeks left a rich literature to their descendants in dealing with this very issue. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle spent a huge amount of energy trying to answer this question. Aristotle's insights. Aristotle studied carefully a wide variety of societies existing either currently or historically (thus employing true social science) and came up simply with a very astute observation: the "good society," as opposed to the "bad society," was distinguished not by the number of people involved in governing that society, whether a government of one, the few, or the many. The good society was characterized by the moral character of those, whether one, few or many, called to govern the society. The Jewish Biblical record. The Jews of the Bible too had their way of addressing the same issue, using the power of historical narrative – the Biblical account about the many centuries of existence of their leaders and their people – to highlight the good and the bad of their own social behavior. In virtually every instance the good was identified with Israel's ability to stay on course with God's instructions, through following God's unchanging Word (the same Word that put the universe into existence), but also his ad-hoc counsel given to those in a leadership position, usually one or another of the Hebrew judges or prophets. However, when the Israelites wandered from this Godly social-moral counsel and discipline, and proceeded to "walk in their own counsel" (which they would do repeatedly), they would fall into trouble … until God, out of simply the grace of his ever-faithful heart, would come to rescue them from their self-inflicted moral folly. Toynbee's insights into why societies fail. More recently, the British historian Arnold Toynbee, in his twelve-volume A Study of History1 – taking nearly thirty years, 1934-1961, to complete – examined 28 civilizations in order to see what made them strong or weak, rising or falling. What he noted was the inability of a society to stay on course with the moral foundations that originally brought it into existence and growth, instead – over time – wandering from that moral course because, in the face of new, rising challenges, a closed and detached elite group of leaders tried to follow unrealistic or utopian (but always self-evidently rational, even if socially suicidal) alternate courses that they themselves dreamed up. In doing so, these social elite would foolishly abandon their society's precious, well-tested traditional moral legacy – instead of carefully (thus wisely) drawing on that same legacy in creative ways in order to meet the new challenges of life as they arose. A society is a spirit of things, not a thing in itself It is important to note that the self-understood purpose of a community – and the rules that guide the members of that community in fulfilling that social purpose – will vary widely from society to society … from East to West, from ancient times to the present. That is because a society is not a "thing" like a tree, or a mountain, or an apple, or a squirrel, a pair of scissors or a shovel … an object that exists in some clearly definable material form. Instead a society is simply a compelling idea of things, a unifying sense of purpose, a social spirit found in a particular people's hearts, a spirit designed to help that people deal with the challenges they face as a community. It is a set of values held in the human heart that lead people to live cooperatively rather than competitively … seeking the larger good rather than mere selfish gain, wanting to live in harmony with the world rather than in contest or battle with the surrounding world. Unfortunately, "modern" Westerners have come typically to see a society as one founded on particular – and somewhat predictable –patterns or social rules in life … objective patterns found "out there" in the natural world – whether mathematical, material, social, or psychological. Westerners believe that these objective patterns can be studied and understood by the careful observer in such a way that events can not only be anticipated but even be directed or controlled by the "enlightened" individual (the philosopher or scientist … but also the "awakened" religious individual). Indeed, this "modern" understanding or appreciation of life seems to be a totally self-evident Truth to many Westerners … especially to those of a more "intellectualist" nature. 1Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History, Vol. 1: Abridgement of Volumes I-VI; Vol 2: Abridgement of Volumes VII-X. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946 (Vol. 1, renewed in 1974) and 1957 (Vol 2, renewed in 1985). Hindu-Buddhist views on such matters But in fact, such an understanding of social life and its dynamics is not so self-evident to everyone. For instance, the basic orderliness of life is not so self-evident to many Hindus and Buddhists. For most Hindus, karma – not basic order – is at the heart of life. To the Hindu way of thinking, we do not inhabit a world which operates in an orderly fashion in accordance with some kind of benign transcendent will or all-encompassing set of natural laws. Rather, according to the Hindu view of things, life is a complex array of individual lives that come together as a larger whole through the mysterious outworking of the consequences (karma) of personal deeds committed in our previous lifetimes. We all as individuals live out our separate but interconnected lives in order to atone for the deeds of earlier lifetimes. Until karma is fully satisfied, we as individuals are destined to go on living, dying and being reborn in an endless cycle, with no hope of escaping the iron grip of karma. To a Hindu, this is the ultimate reality of life – a reality before which all other judgments about life must bow. For Buddhists, whose faith grew up within this basic Hindu world-view, life is itself merely an illusion. When we try to make it real and work for us, life only produces suffering – lifetime after lifetime. Wisdom demands that we find release (nirvana) from this endless cycle. This is achieved only by becoming aware of the illusory quality of life – and stilling our passions for the life of illusions. When we achieve such emotional detachment, then we have broken the hold of suffering and the eternal sentence of rebirths. We have achieved nirvana. So, indeed, the Western sense of the basic order to life is a very special cultural achievement. It comes naturally to us only because it is all-pervasive within our culture. It inhabits our thoughts about all matters. It drives us to try to solve life's problems – to look for solutions to everything, rather than to throw up our hands in resignation. It has made us "progressive" and ever-reforming. It has made us devoted; it has made us scientific. It has made us "modern." The dangers of social-moral Idealism But this "objective" Western view of things has its own problems. Most unfortunate has been the tendency in the modern West of "progressive" social-political reformers – ones found in public office, in academia, in the press, even in the field of entertainment, etc. – to want to put in place of flawed social orders their own versions of supposedly more progressive social orders … "utopias"2 of one form or another. Such utopias or ideal social orders are presented as the sum of well-designed (designed, of course, by these Idealists) legal structures, laws, political offices, civil and social institutions, that direct the behavior of the members of a society. To them, a good society is a matter purely of good laws and proper political structuring. It is all very mechanical, all very personality-neutral in its operation. This ideal society or utopia proposed by these Idealist-reformers is supposed to work very effectively based on their Humanist belief that it is not man's unrestrained self-serving instincts that create the problems that bring crisis to a society … but instead simply the social confusion caused by improperly designed social orders. These Idealists or Humanists believe that you only have to reform – or better yet rebuild from the ground up – an entirely new social order. Then the members of that social order will most naturally or automatically take their places in the new social scheme … because they too will see its vastly better qualities. That certainly was the intent of the designers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. However … as we have seen in ample detail, Plato failed at constructing just such a perfect society in Syracuse … nearly costing him his life. John Locke's "Grand Model" for the Carolina colony proved to be fairly useless in the face of the various "realities" settlers to that colony came to face. Maximilien Robespierre turned into a murderous butcher in trying to enforce his Jacobin dream for Revolutionary France. Karl Marx would provide the perfect ideal of a society that would live entirely freely and communally according to his program of "scientific socialism" (Communism) … which produced merely the unprecedentedly brutal tyrannies of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Woodrow Wilson would lead American boys off to a "Great War" … in order to kill a lot of German boys – so that global democracy and a world of perpetual peace could finally be founded. Lyndon Johnson sent hundreds of thousands of America boys off to Vietnam … to kill Vietnamese Communists … so that democracy could be put in place in Vietnam. In both Wilson's and Johnson's cases, in doing so, they ended up merely killing hundreds of thousands of people – with no "democracy" resulting from the effort. Bush Junior did the same in Afghanistan and Iraq – as did Obama in Libya and Syria – with the same gruesome results. No matter the historical record, such Humanist Idealism never seems to slow up or go away. Humanists never bother to learn that trying to impose utopian plans on societies that have a foundational social-moral order very different from that of the Idealist dreamers has always been destined to produce only social disaster: horrible political breakdown and the death of hundreds of thousands of people – even millions – and ultimately, after the grand experiment has once again failed miserably, the necessity of imposing some kind of brutal political regime over that society in order to bring it back to liveable conditions. In short, beautiful social plans do not automatically make for beautiful social results. But this is a hard reality almost impossible to get the world of intellectual and bureaucratic social planners to understand. So then … what does it take to improve a less-than-perfect society? 2The word "utopia" comes from the Greek, meaning literally "nowhere." It was brought into popular usage through Thomas More's work of that same name Utopia, published in 1516. The book is actually political satire … not intellectualist Idealism.  Utopia is a hypothetical Socialist society – which ambiguously can be understood idealistically to be a very good society … or be seen cynically as a very bad social form! FINDING A HIGHER SOCIAL PURPOSE At the heart of all social morality is a strong sense of purpose that directs a society as it takes on the many challenges that life offers. Humans cannot thrive on this planet without serving some larger sense of purpose. "Growing up" for a child is exactly that of discovering a larger sense of purpose for their own existence. They must see themselves as "born" to live to this or that larger purpose – by some deeper instinct to take up the role one day as mothers and fathers of their own offspring. But they will also see themselves called to serve even larger calls to purpose: as a farmer, a plumber, a teacher, an architect … but also as a service worker in their community, as a worker among the poor, as a soldier sent off to defend their society, as an elected public official. Without such a higher sense of purpose, life loses its meaning. And the results of such a loss can be cruel and even deadly to someone. But a society must itself also live to its own sense of purpose, or it too will fall into spiritual ruin. After all, it is a society's sense of purpose that creates the moral structure that defines for its various members their particular roles in the mutual social effort that their society exemplifies. Indeed, it is usually some part of that larger social sense of purpose that then directs a society's social members in their own personal quest for purpose in life. All of this works together: the social and personal sense of purpose … and the moral life it calls for. Unfortunately, social purpose and personal purpose are not self-evident in the way the reality of physical things are self-evident. Again … social purpose or social morality is a matter of the spirit, not of some material or physical reality. And that spirit can be one of great goodness … but sadly also one of great evil. And it is not always that easy to see which of these two categories a powerful sense of purpose is directing life toward. That requires perspective – the element of time – before the goodness or evil will reveal themselves … by way of the social outcomes a society (or a person) experiences. That is why a careful study of history – and not just immediate "enlightenment" – helps a person or a people find that perspective … well before more distant outcomes are able to reveal themselves. Most tragically, the more common failure to take a larger view of things – the tendency to want to simply jump into an exciting, even "revolutionary," social project – is famous for its very tragic results. The cruelty of the nationalist impulse that drove the West in the 20th century World War One (the "Great War") was a horrible example of moral abandon … that served only to undercut deeply Europe's leading position in world affairs. Nobody was a winner of that horrible adventure. Actually, this nightmare would not go away – and would become even the cause for yet another round at such suicidal madness, World War Two. A big part of the problem was that "nationalism" was a fairly new social norm in Europe, born largely out of the reaction of fellow Europeans to Napoleon's French-driven wars in the early 1800s. For as long as anyone could remember, prior to that, all social boundaries and social identities were fixed by the family fortunes of the various European dynasties. And these mostly had little to do with the "national" or linguistic character of the different social groups that these monarchs reigned over. But the reaction to the sweeping success of Napoleon's fired-up French commoner troops against the European monarchs' mercenary troops finally drove the monarchs to mobilize what they could of the nationalist or linguistic impulses of their various subjects … to come back at the French on equally "nationalistic" terms. But at first, these monarchs had no interest in taking nationalist matters any further than this. But they had stirred up a hornets' nest of nationalist sentiments – the latter shaped greatly by the Romantic stories (in their own language), music and dance popular among the common people. This was a new force that would not be quieted down easily. However, Germany's Chancellor Bismarck intended fully to use just such nationalist sentiment to build a new German society. In this he proved to be awesomely successful. This in turn forced other European monarchs to move in this same direction … to identify their thrones with the nationalist impulses of their subject people – that had things so stirred up by the later 1800s. But this was a new moral force with no larger political or moral interests beyond the full glorification of the nation … in opposition to other nations undergoing the same impulse. And thus the Great War … Germans killing French because they were French, English killing Germans because they were simply Germans – and for no other apparent reason. A huge moral tragedy. But despite the ugliness of the Great War, it would be the nationalist impulses of Hitler and Mussolini leading them once again to try to achieve national greatness for their respective societies. And naturally they would do so by trying to bring down neighboring societies. But most unsurprisingly, this served only to cripple all of Europe's Western societies (including their own) … and succeeded only in bringing to a close Western Europe's former place of leadership in the global scheme of things. Only Russia, way to the East, and America, way to the West, came out of that venture as strong powers. And Japan was nearly destroyed in its own fired-up nationalist venture. Better examples of excellent social purpose America's examples. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the 1980s and even the Soviet Union itself at the beginning of the 1990s, America found itself as the world's sole superpower … looked to by the rest of the world to be something of a policeman on the international beat. And America wisely (its leaders in fact the source of that wisdom) chose to see America's sense of purpose exactly along those lines: not to dominate or impose new social orders according to American political-social principles … but simply to intervene to protect societies when they fell into civil disorder over this or that bitter social-moral breakdown. Thus Bush Sr. – in close alliance with a number of other powers in the region – made a move to expel Saddam Hussein from his occupation of Kuwait … but then, once having quickly succeeded in this venture, refused to take the matter further. When he was criticized for not having finished the job by overthrowing Saddam himself, his Defense Secretary Cheney later explained that the President and his staff had known quite well that to overthrow Saddam Hussein – and thus being forced to take on the task of "democratizing" a post-Saddam Iraq – would have been a bad idea and would have led to a "quagmire."3 Interestingly, Cheney as Bush Jr's Vice President would then a mere ten years later help the younger Bush decide that the Iraqi quagmire at that point was not really a problem. Thus wisdom was replaced by folly. Bush Sr's successor Clinton, continued the elder Bush's wise program … answering the call of the United Nations to help protect its food program undertaken in a civil-war-torn Somalia. But Clinton wisely withdrew such American involvement when it became clear that American troops would get no support from a terrorized Somali population. Clinton also refused to step into the horrible tribal war in Burundi when he realized that the problem was much bigger and deeper than anything America could handle with any degree of success. But he did take action quickly and successfully in bringing Haiti's democratically-elected but militarily-deposed president back to power ... understanding the wide support in Haiti itself he had in this undertaking. Most interestingly, he did not – at first – get that same support from fellow Idealists at home in America. And Clinton – in close cooperation with NATO allies – answered the call to end the genocide in Bosnia … simply forcing Serbia out of the Bosnia. Successful in this enterprise, he resisted the temptation to then go on to try to restructure either Bosnian or Serbian society. And Clinton was again called on to perform the same task in Kosovo when a similar crisis shifted to that part of the region. He chose to act swiftly … but with carefully designed restraint. And the success of it all was well understood and appreciated by everyone (the Serbians not so much!) … Americans as well as Europeans and U.N. officials. These were examples of excellent leadership. Europe's example. Not surprisingly, in the second half of the 20th century, Europeans decided that it was time to build their identities on something larger than just their nationalist or linguistic sentiments … to unite as a New Europe – one in which the borders separating the various member-states of a new political union would come down, politically, economically, and socially. A new moral foundation was to be built in place of the failed nationalist foundations … one which recognized a European society of peaceful and fully cooperative social instincts. They would not achieve this union in a single dramatic step, but would build that new moral base slowly, step by step, as part of a long process starting up in the 1950s ... an expansion still going on today. And Western Europe (now expanded into Eastern Europe) has prospered greatly in this regard. 3That explanation was offered to the press in 1994, a year after Cheney was out of office … and at the time when he was CEO of the huge oil and gas corporation Halliburton. Some other basic principles of "the better way" Knowing when to act. A society certainly cannot exist only as a very passive entity. It also needs to know when it is seriously time to put to use its political, economic and social assets … to address a dangerous challenge – lest it get pushed aside by an aggressive competitor. Sadly a war-wearied Chamberlain failed to understand this and simply kept trying to find ways to "appease" Hitler rather than stand up to him – making it much easier for Hitler to move against Germany's neighbor Czechoslovakia … and ultimately Poland. Churchill finally came to the rescue of a disheartened Britain by inspiring the moral nerve his fellow Brits needed to stand up to horrible German aggression – rather than cave in to the Germans like the French. And this not only saved Churchill's Britain from Nazi tyranny … it made Britain available as the vital launch pad for the larger Western counterattack against Hitler's Nazi tyranny. The importance of alliances. That sense of purpose must most wisely work cooperatively with the social interests of other societies … in order to share – not foolishly waste – social assets. Again, Bush Sr. and Clinton made it a major point to work with other countries – most normally America's NATO partners, but with others as well – in undertaking America's huge responsibilities. America did not undertake these projects as a matter of singular American interest. Unfortunately, Bush Jr. lacked that wisdom, and ended up finding that his desire to knock out Saddam Hussein – and finish his father's "unfinished work" in Iraq – was almost a solo task. Nearly all of America's traditional allies were however wise enough to see very good reason NOT to involve themselves in Bush Jr's personal project. Unfortunately, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair was the major exception, and agreed to work with Bush in the Iraqi invasion … ultimately costing him the loss of what was up until then his very popular British political leadership. MORALITY IS NOT INSTINCTIVE – BUT MUST BE TAUGHT In general, most people are quite aware of the fact that the social rules that guide their social lives need to be carefully taught to rising generations … or the very shape and existence of their community will not long endure. As Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Christian Order put the matter so bluntly back in the 1500s, "Give me a child till he is seven years old, and I will show you the man." Children's rational world has merely begun to take shape. Depending on how the adult world is being presented to them (or not), a new generation will most surely form itself with its own ideas and understandings of how the world is supposed to work, and what a person's particular place in that drama is supposed to be. Not only did the Jesuits understand this vital principle, but so more recently did Hitler, with his massive youth organization, Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth), created in 1926, whose purpose was to turn young Germans into proper Nazis. So also did Mao understand this is moving to build his Cultural Revolution of the mid-1960s almost entirely on China's youth. But everyone understands this at some level … especially attentive parents. Failure to discipline a rising generation to the social rules that guided their own social development will lead to grand social failure. Male and female social roles. Thus it has been in history that in all societies much care was always given to the social-moral development of rising generations … especially to this matter of the development of male and female character. Most interestingly however, girls became women more automatically – and quite early on – in preparation for the eventuality of becoming pregnant and having children to nurse. At the same time, men were expected to protect their wives and children during this very vulnerable period for women and children … and at the same time find ways to meet the financial needs of the family. This was a pretty standard picture across the world – and across all periods of history ... although that pattern seems to be under strong social-moral challenge today. The vital role of the father as male instructor. Traditionally, a young man rather automatically trained and then took up the work and profession of his father. But with the development of modern society, that inherited pattern became less and less the determinative matter. Occupational choices were much more widely available … especially in urban society. Since the onset of modern times, men – in order to avoid the alternative of having to take up the brutal job as a common industrial laborer – therefore took up special technical training to prepare them for this wider set of possible occupations. Now more recently, women have tended to hold off on the marriage-childbearing routine ... and joined the men in this same technical enterprise. Learning to work together as a team. Also, learning to work as a team was always a vital part of bringing a youth successfully to manhood … and the broader social responsibilities traditionally awaiting him as an adult. He would be needed to stand in defense not only of his family, but of the larger social order … to the point even of death in its defense if need be. Here, failure to undergo this kind of disciplined development (usually because of an absentee or brutal father) would rather automatically bring very antisocial behavior on the part of a young man … and ultimately the likelihood of prison. But an alternative was once also used – of letting a socially deviant youth choose military service rather than prison (prison, anyway, famous for teaching even worse social habits!). That was actually a wise choice – because it offered the social-moral discipline that was lacking in the young man's earlier development. Little wonder too that the young men who served in the military have tended to be much more supportive of the idea of the necessary social order – "patriotism" as we know it. We saw this strongly present in the Vet generation – both American and European – a generation which served sacrificially in World War Two. Participation in sports was another, less drastic, way for a young man to achieve this same path of social-moral discipline as he approached manhood. Sports taught the importance to young men of "fair play" or "good sportsmanship." A "win" in sports was actually dishonorable if it was not achieved in accordance with the rules of the game. But sadly, sports today is considered merely a game, something for pleasure. Thus the original social purpose for sports is greatly missing. The focus on gender equality. But now the matter of male/female social growth has undergone some very "innovative" developments in the last half-century. The idea of distinct male and female social roles has been downplayed … in the attempt to make their roles not only equal but in fact the same. Indeed, according to "progressive" minds, not giving any particular focus on male development will now result in less toxic manhood. Tragically this type of thinking has produced some very ugly social results.4 "Gender studies" exists widely as a collegiate studies program … but one focused almost entirely on female development – especially professional development – in order to promote women's social standing in a formerly male-led world. Men apparently don't need such special attention. Also, in 2019 the name "Boy Scouts of America" was simply renamed BSA to indicate that it does not focus only on male training … but now includes female units inside the organization. The two sexual units within BSA have not yet been completely intermixed … although given the trend of recent gender attitudes, this will likely develop in the near future. Girl Scouts however continues to exist as an organization devoted to female training. The ranks of the military (all the way to the top) have been opened to women also on an equal basis … although it has not yet been determined whether or not fighting women will bond with fighting men – the way the latter have historically bonded with each other in battle. Racial equality. Racial equality makes great sense in a democratic society. But that equality must be earned … not be merely assigned. Yes … we humans have a natural suspicion about those who do not look like us. But a well-demonstrated period of proper social performance by these suspect groups can easily get a society moved past that prejudice. Every non-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant (non-WASP) group arriving in America went through this same tough period of testing … as to whether or not they would "fit in" to the pre-existing social order. It was not easy. Ugly things happened. But attitude adjustments occurred as these immigrant groups "proved" themselves. The situation for Blacks has been much more dragged out. On the one hand, Black musicians and athletes long ago "proved" themselves ... and were thus accepted, even well honored. But for the rest of the Black world, the acceptance has been painfully slow. Unsurprisingly, the tendency of Liberal officials to want to "assign" equality to Blacks in other areas of social life has not been very successful. But there are a growing number of Blacks in a widening realm of social activity who – like the Polish, Italians, Greeks, etc. – have proved themselves and have earned high respect in society. And many of these individuals are much opposed to the idea that Black equality will ever be achieved by official assignment … seeing in such efforts a tendency to create ever-deeper suspicion within the White community that Black achievement has been assigned – rather than earned. This is very humiliating to those deserving of the honors they have rightly earned. Once again, the efforts of the "enlightened ones" to impose social-moral standards on others seldom works out as planned. Religious "equality." As for religious equality … modern society is confusing itself in supposing that science and religion are two separate social entities … science now supposedly being the higher order and religion being a lower (even unnecessary) order. However … both science and religion are simply different versions of what is properly called a "worldview." Worldviews – including both science and religion – are simply the way a society and its people understand the dynamics of life. And worldviews vary widely from society to society and from time period to time period. Modern science ("natural philosophy" as it was termed at the time) started out in the 1600s as a Christian enterprise … Christians eagerly investigating the "natural" world around them – as testimony to the glory of the Creator God. God's perfect hand was displayed beautifully in every aspect of the structure and action of the surrounding physical world that they were discovering in their research work. A huge problem arose however when the secular-material aspect of this rising sense of natural philosophy looked back at the "truths" of Scripture … ancient events, dates, heroes, etc. To the increasingly secular mindset of rising generations of natural philosophers or "scientists" (since the early 1800s), these appeared to be no more than myth. And indeed, in one sense they were correct. Scripture deeply involves ancient myth. But being of the mindset that they were, these "modern" minds were completely blind to the way Truth – powerful Truth about life and its ways – has long been conveyed through "myth." To the secular mind, nothing can be "True" unless it can demonstrate its truthfulness the way they expect to find Truth in the surrounding physical or material world. Of course such a "scientific" approach has never done well in discovering the great truths of human life and its processes … individually and socially. This is because human life is not a material entity. It is not something that can be found standing "out there" like a physical object. It is not a "thing" that can be brought into their science laboratories to have experiments conducted on social behavior. You just can't do that with a society ... any society. Thus the techniques of modern science have no ways to measure and thus manage social-moral truth. Ultimately, modern "science" – unable to prove or disprove what it is that makes for social Truth – simply dismisses the ancient Truths of Scripture (and other historical sources) as mere superstition, mere religion, mere lie. Worse, they presume that man would live better with no such binding "myth" holding back a more "natural" or religious-free human development … whatever that might be. And that "natural" (unstructured, undisciplined) moral development produced by the Secularist's cynical attitudes about these matters is increasingly producing the most tragic personal and social results … not just moral confusion, but identity confusion and ultimately political-social confusion … and its consequent cruelty. This is because their new secular "laws" of science are just mere speculation … backed up by their own rigid religious tenets, their own religious doctrines … derived from their own Materialist worldview. Theirs is the greater lie than what they accuse Scripture of being. And most tragically, they show no sign of learning from the disastrous results of their efforts … any more than the similarly enlightened ones of the past (Robespierre, Marx, Wilson, etc.) – or their devoted followers – learned any significant social or personal lessons from the huge disasters their theories produced. 4Enlightened Humanists have not yet figured out why the prison population of men involves so many times over the number of women sent to prison.  An October 2023 Federal Bureau of Prisons report lists men as comprising 93.2% of the American prison population, women 6.8%.  Men find it much harder to find a "natural" – that is, uninstructed – place in the adult world than do women. ULTIMATELY ... THE VITAL ROLE OF MORAL LEADERSHIP Besides being highly ambitious, the leader of a society must exemplify the very best of that society's moral system To anyone who has looked seriously at how human history has worked over the countless generations of human life on this planet, it is always very clear how a single individual can shape the character and operation of society. History is full of such examples. Chinese history, for instance, is really the study of personal dynasties, ones that have arisen out of a period of confusion when the Chinese society is torn apart by warring warlords, until one of these warlords is able to establish ascendancy over the others, and thus begin a new dynasty, and a new period of peace and social development. The Hebrew Bible is really a story of ancient Hebrew patriarchs and prophets, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, etc., and the huge impact they personally had on the shaping of the Hebrew nation. Western history is filled with the stories of how such individuals as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Luther, Calvin, Louis XIV, etc., had a huge impact on the defining of the social order of their days. More recently we have also seen how Washington, Napoleon, Lincoln, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi, Churchill, Mao, Johnson (LBJ) shaped our world – in ways good or bad – in their days. Inspirers or dominators? It most certainly takes a special personal type to lead a society … someone who has a higher goal in life than the average person. There really is no way to produce such a leader, although leadership itself can be cultivated and developed. Leaders are just born with more aggressive personalities. There can be all sorts of explanations for this. But the fact is, they are just different. Quite obviously also, there can be a vast difference between a good leader … and a bad leader. The good leader – especially the great leader – typically is one who is able to inspire the rest of society in its activities. The bad leader – especially the dangerous leader or tyrant – will find it necessary to dominate and intimidate others in order to get them to work under his leadership. Thus Alexander the Great and Stalin went at leadership very differently … Alexander inspiring his troops and Stalin intimidating the Russians into total submission. Thus Washington could inspire Americans during its "revolution" … leading these American commoners all the way to the unprecedented success of actually defeating a huge royal army of a king sent to bring them under his tyrannical control. On the other hand – and most tragically – Robespierre could keep his French "revolution" moving ahead only through murderous intimidation of much of the rest of the French leadership … ultimately producing disastrous results for France. But even "inspired" leadership can be dangerous. Hitler was brought to power as Germany's Chancellor in 1933. But what happened next to Germany had little to do with the mechanics of the German Weimar Republic or the office of Chancellor. In fact, that German constitutional order was quickly put aside – with the German people themselves being fully supportive of Hitler – in order to build a German Third Reich or Empire around the very person of their Führer (Leader) Hitler. For better or worse (in this case horribly worse) the German nation redefined itself around the personality of this single individual. Mao went at leadership inspiring China's peasants, but at the same time dominating and intimidating – actually terrorizing – its urban population. Failing at this misadventure, he then turned to inspiring (actually brain-washing) a rising generation of Chinese youth to follow him most devotedly in attacking that older, more urban, more traditional sector of Chinese society that he detested so much. Thus, as can be seen in the above examples, there must be a strong sense of moral boundaries operative in the leader himself, or horrible things can result … for power is very corrupting of human behavior if it is allowed to go unchecked. We are reminded of Lord Acton's famous statement: "Power corrupts … absolute power corrupts absolutely."5 5The actual quote from a letter he wrote to Anglican bishop Creighton in 1887 reads:  "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."  Although Acton was an active Catholic, he was strongly opposed to his Church's move to declare the infallibility of the pope (1870) … seeing no way that the office itself offered such sanctification to anyone – and in fact historically tended to produce quite the opposite. The divine hand in the shaping of effective leadership We cannot emphasize enough the fact that those who have had the greatest influence  on society, on history itself, were not bureaucratic fonctionnaires,6 but instead dynamic individuals of great charismatic character, able to inspire others – many others – to follow them step by step as they led … even if the path they were taking the people down was highly dangerous. And the word charismatic is key here. Charisma is an old Greek word χάρισμα (khárisma) implying a special anointing, a heavenly or divine grace placed upon a person, such as makes that person unusually gifted as a leader. That divine grace as a gifting comes not from another person or social institution or material or physical property. It has long been understood as coming from above, above as in Heaven, the gods, or God himself … but possibly also from evil or satanic elements as well, if care is not taken in measuring or judging by ancient spiritual standards the voice of such a non-worldly or supernatural source. The Chinese, for instance, have understood for thousands of years this phenomenon in the form of what they called since ancient times the Tianming (Mandate of Heaven). Chinese Emperors gained the necessary respect and support from the Chinese nation in being able to demonstrate the many ways that Heaven (Tian) had smiled on their rule. Visible social success indicated clearly the approval and support of Heaven. But the downside of that same idea was that when floods, famines, diseases or enemy raiders attacked Chinese society, that same respect and support among the people would melt away. To the people this was a clear sign that the Tian had obviously withdrawn that special favor that Chinese society depended on so greatly. And this change in political climate would be the signal to Chinese warlords to put forth their candidacy as the new Emperor. And a violent round of civil war (often lasting centuries) would result, until it was clear that Heaven had once again made its choice: a victor, a Tianzi (Son of Heaven) would finally emerge to take charge of China. But other examples abound. Alexander the Great believed that he was actually the son of a God (or at least that's how he presented himself to the society that supported him) and went to the Siwa Oasis in the middle of the Libyan Desert to have the Ammonite priests there attest to this fact. Likewise, David was anointed at a very early age by Samuel as God's chosen leader of Israel, and David was willing to wait through very troubled times, even passing up opportunities to launch his own career, as he waited for God (and only God) to bring his kingship into being. So also the Roman imperial candidate Constantine was vitally aware of God's appointment of him as future Emperor, moving against a much larger enemy candidate under the sign God had given him to conquer with: the Chi-Rho sign of Jesus the Christ. And closer to home, we know that both Washington and Lincoln were men of immense Christian faith, drawing on that faith to keep them moving forward during very dark times, when others would have quit. Of course there have been rulers who have operated apart from just such a sense of divine appointment. But lacking such higher "legitimacy" they are driven to rule by force, often by sheer terror inflicted on a subject people – as paranoia and fear of losing their position (never really quite "legitimate" in the eyes of the people) drives them forward. Certainly Stalin and Mao fit this description. And the manner and ultimately durability of the societies that they ruled over attest to the problems that soon enough develop for a society when it lacks a "higher" hand supporting it. To be sure, such a "higher hand" is historically defined in different ways, with different versions of Heaven, different versions of God. Or are they all that different? What we humans can understand about the Realm of God can come only through human interpretation, and thus is going to come to us through different cultural versions. But they all point to the same higher source of power, one existing above all human capability itself. Christianity itself is built entirely on that understanding, not just through the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus but through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (and in the case of the Apostle Paul, a post-resurrection encounter with Jesus himself), God's very hand in getting Jesus's early followers up and running as a powerful people. One thing also is clear about these key historical examples: Heaven's call on them to the task of leadership was always quite real to the leaders themselves. 6French for those who govern from their chairs behind desks in governmental office buildings. Skeptics Others, such as intellectuals, who operate only from their self-conceived world of pure reason (thus needing no God beyond their own personal intelligence), will mock those who put forward the claim of divine calling. Why not? No such calling ever came to them – and never will come to them, as long as they put huge material boundaries around their personal sense of reality. As the opening chapters of the Bible put things, such scoffers have chosen to do what Adam and Eve did in cutting themselves off from God and his counsel (and provision). They have eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil – so as to be themselves like God … as the Deceiver himself beguiled them into believing would be the grand result of this act of disobedience to God. Such individuals can scoff all they want. But they will never find the social significance that they so greatly crave in trying to be so reasonable. Why is this connection with the higher power of Heaven or God thus so important to social leadership? Leaders are not your average person. Your average person naturally wants to fit in, be an integral part of society. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those instincts. A strong society depends on exactly that very instinct being found widely among its people. But leaders (at whatever level of society, all the way from the royal or imperial palaces down to moms and dads at the family dinner tables) – in any circumstance in which they assume the responsibilities of leadership – must answer to a different voice than that of the immediately approving world around them. Kings, emperors and presidents – as well as just "commoner" parents – push ahead because they see in their respective worlds of great moral (and loving/caring) responsibility – whether to the many or the few under their care – something higher or more noble, something not yet attained, something that not even the society they are dealing with can yet see or understand. And by answering to that higher vision, that higher calling placed on their hearts, they do not pull back from a social responsibility simply because the society they are supervising – from independent-minded little children to jealous political rivals – does not see things their way. Yet equally importantly, it is an accompanying responsibility of theirs to help those in their care to see and understand as much of this same vision as possible … in particular what then is required of them in order that they become useful contributors to their own societies. Thus it is that true leaders (and not just those occupying high political office) are designed to draw others forward to a higher task, even when the society itself is afraid or confused … especially when it is afraid or confused. Leaders must lead the people to a higher call, a call that those under their care do not yet see or understand, yet one that is vital to the survival and growth of that society. Leaders must lead. George Washington A truly amazing leader was General – then President - Washington. Here was someone who was able to inspire thousands of young men to fight off a much larger invading force of experienced British troops … and then when the fight was over, unlike so many who have attained such prominence in their leadership, step into retirement as a simple farmer. There were efforts by very unhappy officers to put him in charge of a postwar America – because the Continental Congress was not (actually, could not) deliver on the promises of financial rewards for those who had served very sacrificially in this fight to preserve American independence. But Washington himself moved boldly to dismantle this plan … realizing how such a political move would undo every good thing their previous efforts had achieved. He would a few years later be called on to preside at the 1787 gathering of the representatives of the various states in their effort to draft a new Constitution. Through that hot summer, Washington was largely a silent presence … but one whose mere glance could still all uncivil conversation – and keep the delegates moving forward. It was always clear that Washington was the only one qualified to lead this new Federal Union. But exactly how he would operate, and in what capacity he would do so, was a seriously debated matter. As a "president" there was absolutely no precedent to know what that would entail. Nothing like this new American Republic had ever existed before. Most everyone expected that he would simply become something like every other Western leader: a king (thus George I of America!). But here too, Washington knew that he was to lead – not dominate or control – the new Republic … lead long enough anyway to help the new Republic get on its feet so as to be able to move forward into a brave new world. He had absolutely no interest in making himself an American monarch. In short, Washington always answered to a higher sense of his role in life than simply dominating everyone else. Actually, he intended to return to his farm after a single four-year term of service as the country's first president. However, he reluctantly agreed to serve a second term … but only on the basis of the pleas of most everyone that he continue in the role he had assumed. It was working out beautifully for the new Republic. But he refused to serve a third term … establishing by his own example the principle that a person should hold no such presidential power in the Republic for more than two terms – a principle violated by Roosevelt when he went for a third and then fourth term ... leading Congress to initiate the 22nd Amendment in 1951 making the two-term principal a fully constitutional matter. Again … a key limit on power established by Washington. Better than most, he understood the vital importance of high moral principle – rather than human ambition – leading the country … at all levels of society. Thus in his farewell address delivered in 1796 as he was stepping down from the presidency, he offered his country a number of key principles that had guided him through his days … in the hopes that the country would itself continue to operate under those same insights. First of all, he was very aware of the dangers of political sectionalism (the American North, South and West with their political differences) destroying the unity of the country. It was very important for Americans to understand the higher call placed on their new Federal Union or Republic … for it served as a model offered to the rest of the world of a society governed by its people … not by some particular social group. He also warned about the dangers of readily changing the constitutional foundations on which the Republic rested … especially the way political powers were carefully separated by a checks and balances system that required the full cooperation among its leading offices in order to avoid the dangers of despotism. He stressed the importance of proven precedent rather than political ambition being the basis on which adjustments are made to the political process. He states specifically: If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. He then went on to describe the key role that religion and morality should play in keeping any society on such a positive course: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. These were the words of a wise leader … not just the rationalizations of a very ambitious political actor anxious to take command in order to increase his own sense of political importance. Washington's example would offer the country a restraining sense of moral purpose, one that would help the country through various crises, crises that mere political ambition would have turned into massive political catastrophes – as the French Revolution had just amply demonstrated. Abraham Lincoln As another example, there was Lincoln, who was so brave as to actually undertake the crushing responsibility of breaking the intention of the Southern states to abandon and thus cripple the American Union. Presidents before him had seen the difficulty of trying to keep the Union together in the face of this horrible question of slavery, and had simply looked the other way, kicking the can of slavery down the road for someone else after them to deal with. But Lincoln, in assuming the American Presidency, understood that the burden of leading the Union through this deadly challenge was his, by literally Divine appointment. And to God, and God alone, did he increasingly look for comfort and support as he put the nation through this terrible crisis – in order to finally get this matter settled once and for all. Keeping people with him tested every ounce of Lincoln's personal strength as a leader. Yes, he had his supporters. Great leaders do. But he had also a huge number of whiners who complained about how all this killing of America's young men was way beyond the nation's ability to sustain. They were ready to quit, to let the South be on its way with its slaves and all, and leave what was left of America to get on with things as best it could. Even on his home front, with his wife, he faced the constant demand to "give it up" so that the Lincoln family could just get things back to normal. But "normal" was not an option for America, and Lincoln knew this. God himself had called America to greater things than just letting matters go. America, after all, was a covenant nation, commissioned by God to give hope to the world by setting before the world the living, breathing human example of how the little people of the world no longer needed to live in bondage to the powerful of this world. America had to live on as a light to the world showing the way to something we call true democracy. As Lincoln himself put the matter at the memorial service for those tens of thousands of young men who had died in this horrible 3-day battle on the fields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. It is little wonder that for generations after this speech in 1863, it and the opening lines of America's 1776 Declaration of Independence would be the most memorized words in American history. Lincoln, leading this nation, under God, was determined that this country would not quit in the face of the horrible sacrifice required of those answering the noble call that God himself had placed on the American nation. And thus America answered its president's reminder of this high calling with a huge "yes! Yes, we will so commit ourselves and our sacred honor to this most noble, this Divine, cause." Winston Churchill Look at how Churchill stiffened the resolve of a British people, under deep attack by the Nazi Luftwaffe, to stay the course – to never give up, to fight until victory was theirs. This was the follow-up to the poor leadership of Chamberlain, whose lack of political wisdom undercut those German military officers who were about to make a move to bring down the Hitlerian regime … a regime obviously (not so obvious to a blind Chamberlain however) drawing Germany ever closer to another ruinous war. Just as the French folded under the lack of decisive leadership when Hitler turned against the French, it looked as if Chamberlain was very likely to "come to terms" with Hitler himself. That would have put Britain under the same domination that the French then found themselves. Thankfully under his replacement Churchill, that simply was not going to happen. Under Churchill's call, his inspiring leadership, the British would continue to fight … no matter how dark the circumstances seemed to be. Now that was true leadership. Inspiring leadership More recently we have seen this under Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy … a man not only willing to fight, but one able to inspire the Ukrainians themselves to fight … against a much larger Russian army. Thus Putin's plans to take Ukraine – the way he earlier so easily took the naval base at Crimea – have failed … and will likely continue to fail. This kind of Ukrainian leadership was most unexpected by Putin, expecting instead of the Ukrainians another weak response to Russian aggression ... such also as that which he encountered from the American "superpower" president Obama in Putin's takeover of Crimea … one similar to the response of Obama to the Chinese taking claim to the entire South China Sea. Bold talk ... and no significant action. In short, leadership is supremely critical in determining how an entire society will go at challenges placed before it. Weak leadership leads to a weak social response. Strong leadership leads to a strong social response. That is what inspired leadership achieves. This is not what ordinary office-holders do. The latter simply follow plans and programs placed before them. Leaders however inspire others to take action, to take up the hard, even sacrificial, work together so that their society may move forward. It is after all, the effort of the masses of "little people," not the fancy ideas of bureaucratic social planners, that bring societies their grand successes. The same holds true in shaping ordinary individuals   At the same time, it is very important to emphasize how it was that, in America's foundational stages, the Puritans were very aware that God's hand was there also to guide everyone, including New England's ordinary individuals, in doing those ordinary things that human life ultimately depends on. That was the whole point of the Puritan experiment in America. At a time when European kings were defending their positions against a rising middle class, the kings claiming special divine appointment, the Puritans answered back that the same God is just as much interested in and supportive of the "little people" – as clearly was Jesus in his time. They claimed that what God truly wanted to see come to pass was a people who lived and worked together in harmony as equals before God ... and each other. And thus the democracy concept was brought front and central in the Puritan experiment. It provided a powerful moral legacy for a new America, one that carried the nation forward for nearly four centuries. Throughout the Christian West, this social dynamic has normally found its foundation in the home. Family goals and social discipline – but ultimately the way the family looked above to God – developed repeatedly among the rising generations because of the moral-spiritual leadership that the parents provided their children. Parents were/are the rising generation's first encounter with inspiring leadership. Children develop social instincts and social trust at a very early age, because of the leadership their parents provide. From there, such social inspiration was/is cultivated further through inspiring classroom teachers and inspiring pastors. The high quality of the classroom, and the high quality of the pulpit, was also key to American democratic success. That social pattern must never be replaced by the domination, even dictatorship, of the distant "enlightened ones" found in bureaucratic offices or seated behind high judicial benches – or even in front of TV cameras offering 24-hour wisdom or comments on how they believe life should take shape in America – willing to assume, even to take away, such local responsibility from the community's families, schools and churches or synagogues. In America, those in such high social position were long-expected to be there to inspire such grass roots development of the American family, school and church/synagogue – not replace it. CHRISTIANITY AS THE FOUNDATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION The British political leader, but also the author of volumes of Western history, Winston Churchill, referred to Western Civilization as "Christian Civilization." And rightly so. The Christian worldview officially shaped the European (and later, American) Western world since the early 300s, over 1700 years ago (but beginning its influence well before even then). Christianity was central to the understanding of what society was all about, what its purpose was, and how life was to be moved forward to higher things. Until 50 years ago this same Christian understanding about life was also the mainstay of the American idea, giving the country three and a half centuries of national vision and social purpose during its development from a European backwater to its position at the head of the Christian world as its primary defender. Christianity was a central element in America's rise to its status as the world's sole Superpower. The recent decline of Christianity's moral-spiritual role Meanwhile, as a slow but gathering process occurring over the last half-century, all of that cultural-spiritual dynamic has been pushed aside step by step by federal judicial decree, in the effort to replace the Christian legacy with Secular Humanism. The results of that substitution both at home and abroad have been dramatically much less than excellent. The 2018 and 2019 Pew Reports. On May 29, 2018 the Pew Research Center released a report on the status of Christianity in fifteen Western European countries,7 and on October 17, 2019, the Pew Research Center released a similar report on Christianity in America.8 Both reports clearly demonstrated how deeply that Christian character of America and the West has declined. In Europe, 64% of the population identified themselves as Christians … although only 18% were actually church-attending Christians and 46% were rated as "non-practicing Christians." Those rated as religiously unaffiliated were 24% of the population, with 4% "other." The highest of church-attending countries were Italy (40%), Portugal (35%), Ireland (34%), Austria (28%), Switzerland (27%), Germany 22%), and Spain (21%). Lowest were Sweden and Finland (9% … although 68% of the Finns considered themselves to be non-practicing Christians), Belgium and Denmark (10%), Norway (14%) and the Netherlands (15%). Both France and Britain were rated at 18%. The largest number of religiously unaffiliated were found in the Netherlands (48%), Norway (43%), Sweden (42%), Belgium (38%), and Spain and Denmark (30%). The American study found that only 65% of Americans still described themselves as Christians, down 12 percent over the previous ten years. At the same time, those that claimed no religious affiliation (from atheists to simply "nothing in particular") rose to 26% of the population, up from 17% in 2009. In short, the American and European statistics overall were quite similar. The Pew study went even deeper in the American study, looking at actual trends in the Christian dynamic in the country. Thus the study found that the age of the Americans being surveyed was even more skewed against Christianity. Of the oldest group, the Silents, the decline in Christian affiliation was only 2 percent; for the Boomers it was 6%; and Gen-X 8 percent. But the percentage drop among the Millennials (born in the 1981-1996 period) was a huge 16 percent. This left 84% of the older Silents still standing in 2019 as Christians – whereas only 49% of the Millennials still identified themselves as Christians. That is a terrible indicator as to where America is headed in the future morally and spiritually as a nation. Not surprisingly also, political party affiliation made a big difference. For those that identified themselves politically as Republican, or leaned in that direction, the ten-year decline was 7 percent. But the Democrats marked a 17 percent decline in Christian identity. As a consequence, in 2019, 79 percent of the Republicans still identified themselves as Christians, whereas the figure stood at 55% for the Democrats. That is a very significant political difference, pointing further to the likely moral and spiritual direction in which the country is headed, depending upon which of the two political parties is in power in Washington. 7https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/ 8https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid- pace/ Christianity and society Christianity at its heart (as set forth by Jesus himself) was about Godly empowerment of the individual, in the face of life's many and often quite difficult challenges. Christianity supported human life with the understanding that, with simple faith in God alone, these challenges could be met and conquered by even the least socially significant of individuals – because God himself offered his powerful support to those who simply trusted him as their Heavenly Father. God was not interested in a person's social status, as societies tend to be and do. Christianity also demonstrated clearly (during the worst of times of Roman persecution) that individual strengthening through Divine empowerment also worked awesomely well in producing the right structuring for social as well as personal life. In fact, it was the witness of the Christians in their immense personal and social strength that impressed a morally decadent Rome to begin to look to Christianity as the solution to the decay that infected Roman life in every imaginable social area possible. Admittedly, Christianity has been used as a civic formula for autocracy. But that was never its original nature. And from time to time reforms have swept the Christian world in order to bring the people back to the original character of the Christian faith … as Jesus himself clearly laid it out. The Protestant Reformation of the 1500s and 1600s, during which English Puritanism was founded, was just such an early example – and a critical social foundation for New England and all it stood for. Also, the Great Awakenings were key to keeping Christianity on course in the face of the natural instinct of man to want to displace Divine guidance and support with personal autonomy: the ever-present temptation to want to play God himself. Europe looks to America For the past 70 years, since the end of World War Two, Europe has looked to America to play the leading role in defending Western civilization – allowing Europeans to look after their own material development in the meantime. As they lost their leading position in world events, so also they lost interest in the moral-spiritual order that once had made Europe itself the center of global affairs. They were content to live to some kind of grand material, but not grand spiritual, purpose. As philosophers ranging from Aristotle to Toynbee have observed, such moral-spiritual decline was an indication of Europe's overall political-social decline as well. America's own self-imposed decline But America too now finds itself headed down the same moral-spiritual road as Europe. Worse, many American leaders themselves have called on Americans to take a strong stand against the supposed tyranny of Middle America. These post-modern crusaders feel the need to attack a traditional America still possessing the strong and well-tested and well-proven Christian social standards that for generations America has faithfully lived by. But what do they actually stand for? We know what they stand against. But a society cannot survive simply on the basis of its people being against its very social-moral existence. Where is the unifying idea that will pull America together, and Western civilization with it? Who today is offering strong moral guidance to our great Western or Christian civilization? In all of this, America seems to be asleep at the wheel, its leading political voices in Washington more intent in playing the game of crippling each other, as if Washington politics were merely a TV game show for wannabe celebrities. True leadership that would bring everyone togther at a higher moral-spiritual level seems to be in short supply. The critical need for another "Great Awakening" We have arrived at the same point in which if our civilization is to be saved from its own self-inflicted folly, we are going to need another Divine intervention. Or else the days of American global leadership, as well as the modern Western or Christian Civilization's social-moral-spiritual leadership in the world's development, are over. China can hardly wait for this to happen! A CALL TO RENEW THE COVENANT WITH GOD So … at this point it is of critical importance that America finds its way back to the original Covenant with God, similar to the one presented by Moses as the Hebrews were about to enter the Promised Land, and exactly the same one that Winthrop referred to in delivering his famous sermon, "City on a Hill," as the Puritans were about to depart in their ships in order to begin their great Christian experiment in America: . . . Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. . . . if we shall neglect the observation of these articles, [and] embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant. . . . Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck [of God's wrath], and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others' necessities. We must delight in each other; make others' conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. . . . Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil, in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it. Therefore let us choose life, that we and our seed may live, by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity. Maranatha ("may our Lord come") We are way beyond the possibility of human self-help. As a fully-confused and wandering Fourth-Generation people, our help at this point can come only from the intervention of God. And so we pray that God might come and free us from our self-inflicted folly. But we might also add: "However, dear Lord, please do not make it hurt too much." The Great Depression of the 1930s cured us of our 1920s silliness. The toughness required of human life during the Depression got America smart real fast, and prepared the country for the enormous task of fighting both the German and the Japanese Empires at the same time. Thankfully God had intervened in order to toughen up America, or a still-silly America would have failed horribly to meet successfully the challenge of a war placed before it in 1941. But today we have over a half-century of silliness to get over, not just ten years, as was the case following the Roaring Twenties. Thus it might take much more "toughening up" of our character than even another ten-year Great Depression to get us back to being a First-Generation people, a people once again able to take on the huge challenges that await us. We are saddled with an enormous national debt and a Secular-Socialist moral-spiritual dependency we have fallen under at home, and we face the amazing inability to focus on, or even understand, much less answer, the monumental challenges to America rising abroad. But we are hoping that God will honor the Covenant that our ancestors once signed onto, for themselves and for the future generations to come after them. That is our fondest hope. It is, in fact, our only hope. Maranatha!    Miles H. Hodges