"I was going to buy a book on hair loss but the pages kept falling out." - Jay London

In a (thankfully) rare departure from my normal drivel I'm going to try to explain my thoughts on what I consider a significant contemporary issue...Duck Dynasty, the flap over Phil Robertson's comments in a GQ interview, and A&E's decision to place him on indefinite hiatus for his comments. I think I surprised some people on Facebook, and probably disappointed some, when I encouraged others to also contact A&E to express their disapproval of that decision, especially after writing here a few weeks ago that Christians need to grow up and accept the reality that we live in a pluralistic society that will move progressively further from a Judeo-Christian ethic.

So what's up with getting all exercised about A&E's decision to discipline Robertson? (No one can reasonably argue it was anything but a trip to the woodshed.)

In our adult class at Pathway last week we learned the difference between secularism and secularization. The former is the term meaning a separation between church and state. In contrast to the Holy Roman Empire or one of the Islamic nations now present in the Middle East, America has always been committed to secularism. It was written into our constitution and is the law of the land. That is to our great benefit.

Secularization refers to a movement away from religiously based values, whether they be Judeo-Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist, toward a societal ethic based on humanism, a system which includes no deity or the supernatural.

Secularism is within the realm of law, of de jure. Secularization takes place on the street and is de facto. The state can and does influence the degree to which secularization takes place, and we see that dynamic at work currently with the spreading legalization of gay marriage. But even there we have to ask if the state would be acting thusly apart from secularization first setting the stage. If societal values weren't already shifting, would laws change? The civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 suggests not. That said, the VRA certainly hastened the pace of de facto desegregation, even as the legalization of gay marriage speeds the acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

Precisely because secularization is primarily a de facto dynamic, because it takes place on the street and not in the halls of government, I am a participant in the dynamic. I may be an active or passive participant, and if active I may work to speed or slow the pace, but by virtue of being a member of my society I am an actor. (A case could be made that if I'm passive I am tacitly on the side of secularization.)

Then the question becomes, is secularization good or harmful?

As I wrote in the aforementioned post, I think a convincing case can be made on strictly practical grounds that secularization is harmful to a society, and in significant ways. (Note: this is not an argument against secularism! The distinction between those two terms must always be kept in mind.) Without a good and gracious supernatural Creator we are left with a naturalistic system governed only by the laws of nature. Where, then, do we find a basis for the virtues of compassion, grace, forgiveness, and a dozen other values that make no sense in an environment governed by naturalistic processes and evolution? C.S. Lewis said (forgive the paraphrase) that people challenge him to explain horrible injustices if there's a God. He responded by asking how they explain laughter if there is no God.

So here's where it lands for me. As a member of society I think I am best served, my descendants are best served, and my neighbor is best served, if the basis of our social values and mores is the Judeo-Christian ethic. Yes, I view that as the superior ethic vis a' vis all other religious systems. No surprise there. Since prescriptions (virtues) and prohibitions (vices) are the two necessary sides of any ethical system I will work actively to influence where possible the de facto direction of my culture in order to preserve the Judeo-Christian ethic which has formed the base of our societal ethic since our country's founding.

Accordingly, my support of Phil Robertson and criticism of A&E is my effort in this perhaps pivotal circumstance to exert influence to preserve Judeo-Christian values.

Those who favor secularization have demonstrated skill at applying pressure in the context of the marketplace (including social media), and I don't see any reason I should do otherwise. We disagree; that's OK. It is also OK if I use my influence to slow the pace of secularization. I must do it with respect, and I am most effective when I do it with reasoned articulation, but I have every right (and duty) to participate in the dynamic.