[Ixa]

Splendid article.

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles/JacMTV.htm

An MTV Mind
Fr. Johannes Jacobse

The moral world of our Orthodox teens has changed. Our teens are changing with it. I first noticed this shift almost a decade ago while discussing sex outside of marriage with a small group of teens at summer camp.

One girl rose up and strenuously asserted that sex outside of marriage was not wrong if both partners love each other. [...]

In her view, moral behavior was a private choice with no broader reference to any rule, tradition, or authority. Her morality was completely shaped by secular teen culture. She had an MTV mind.

She isn't alone. More and more of our young people think just like her. They suffer from a paucity of moral clarity that the generation that preceded them didn't share. The previous generation certainly had its share of troubles but they were more clear about right and wrong. The present generation is more confused.

This confusion is especially prevalent in sexual matters. One reason is that teens are fed a diet of relentless promiscuity through the teen media.

Watch popular prime time programs like "Friends." Watch MTV. Listen closely to the lyrics of much popular music. Check out the catalogs from Abercrombie and Fitch. Read some magazines geared to teens, especially girls. Almost every corner of the youth culture has been sexualized.

The sexualization of our youth has reached a crisis point. The merchants who populate teen culture have no regard for the spiritual or moral health of the teens they sell to. Teens hear almost no voices challenging the sexualized relationships the media imposes. Some parents aren't even aware of the words and images their children are exposed to. Teens can lose their way here and many have.

Confusion about morality creates a weak moral compass. Teens who are confused about right and wrong are less aware of the physical and emotional damage that doing wrong can cause. They become victims of their own inexperience. Teens with moral clarity develop a stronger moral compass. They can see more clearly the consequences of wrong decisions before those decisions are made.

Ask yourself - really ask yourself: Do I want my child adopting the values of self-gratification that the teen media imposes? Is the sexualization of children something I must accept? Do I want my child to develop an MTV mind?

Several years ago The Search Institute, a Minneapolis research group that studies the moral lives of children, isolated three factors in the lives of teens who successfully navigated the minefield of teen culture. The teens who avoided sex outside of marriage, drug use, and the other enticements that the teen media promotes had these things working for them: 1) a relationship with a stable adult in addition to their parents; 2) peers who shared the same moral values; and 3) a religious grounding.

Our society needs mature men and women with clear voices about right and wrong to teach our youth right from wrong. We can start in our own parish.

With vision and leadership our parishes can become a place that equips out teens to recognize and stand against moral harm. Adults with a sound morality who are capable of forming healthy friendships with teens can be found there. Moral friendships between teens can be nurtured there. Our Orthodox faith can be authentically lived and taught there.

When parents and other clear thinking adults muster the moral courage to stand against those forces that would corrupt our teens, we give our teens a fighting chance. Families will grow stronger and so will the parish. Our children don't need an MTV mind. They need a mind of their own. They need strong adults on their side.

Fr. Jacobse is a priest in the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America. Copyright © 2002 Rev. Johannes L. Jacobse

[Maxim Litvinov]

I have watched Friends. It has not made me want to have sex with people any more than otherwise. Even Jennifer Aniston.

The girl at camp seems to have a fairly cogent stance. Sex is okay in a loving and devoted relationship. The idea of linking this to MTV seems a bit strange.

I am trying to work out your position, Ixabert. I thought you were non-religious?

So, my short query is: what moral authority do you want, Ixabert, if you think children nowadays are becoming sexually perverted or overly adventurous?

[David]

I have watched Friends. It has not made me want to have sex with people any more than otherwise.

But you do admit that it sends the message that sexual activity outside of marriage is acceptable, regardless of moral position on the matter?

The girl at camp seems to have a fairly cogent stance. Sex is okay in a loving and devoted relationship. The idea of linking this to MTV seems a bit strange.

The point is that stance is in line with popular secular culture, and not what the Orthodox church teaches. MTV's particular message may be somewhat more liberal though.

[Jesse]

I for one wouldn't have it any other way. Its progressive - our society is evolving and maturing. We're finally freeing ourselves from the ridiculous moral shackles that have been imposed on us by theism.

[enLight]

We're finally freeing ourselves from the ridiculous moral shackles that have been imposed on us by theism.

That's the most elegant way I've ever heard to describe the descent into decadence.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Meh. Every generation always comes to think: "oh, the new ways are decadent and permissive... and wrong".

Why a descent into decadence? Why not an ascent into enlightenment? People being more and more open and knowledgeable about the way their bodies work?

I do agree that if my only source of morality was 'Friends', then I would not only think that sex outside marriage is kindof fun, but also that watching Baywatch was right and that love hexagons were perfectly natural.

I don't agree that there is any conspiracy by MTV to make children sexually active. I don't think they've got any sponsorship deals with Durex. All that is happening is that people are evolving in terms of what they think is sexually appropriate, and the media, as always, are on the cutting edge. I would call it sexual glasnost'...

My initial question to Ixabert, I am still awaiting a response to.

[David]

Why a descent into decadence? Why not an ascent into enlightenment?

You claim to be a Christian, but you seem to be arguing for a sexual morality completely alien to Scripture and Tradition. Can you resolve this apparent dissonance?

[enLight]

Why a descent into decadence? Why not an ascent into enlightenment?

Well as an article at Dynasophy.org put it, history is not linear. One must view the history of civilization instead in a revolving manner. Like a living organism, civilizations are born, they grow and reach their peak, then descend into either decadence, stagnation, or both.

When viewing our Western civilization (namely Europe and America) from it's beginning - after the Roman Empire, during the middle ages - up until modern day, I've come to agree with Dynasophy.org's conclusion that the West is on it's way down. Sure we are fine materially and technologically, but the culture rot (as I like to call it) has already set in.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it would seem that the cycle is inevitable.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Sure, CR.

In terms of scripture and tradition, I almost completely reject tradition. For all tradition is to me is a collection of decisions based upon sometimes old-fashioned or anachronistic learning. For the Church has not always been motivated by upholding the scriptures, but also by the historical circumstances in which it found itself.

So, while I think that tradition is very useful in checking up the scholarship of the church, I also think that all modern-day beliefs should be fully justifiable on the basis of scripture and reason alone.

Scripturally, I believe there is a basis for belief in loving unions. I believe there is a basis for belief in marriage (as men and women). I believe there is a basis for condemning lust. I don't believe there is a good basis for belief that homosexuality is automatically wrong.

So, in terms of scripture, do I think that Friends is a bad thing? Not really that terrible. It focusses on friendship, but at the same time seems to encourage lust.

My main concern with enLight's argument was that he sees something unique about this generation - as a descent into decadence. I think it is naturally human to be lustful, and that such sin has been characteristic of all ages and not just the present one. While recent years have seen the media projecting more and more sexual ideas, and pushing the envelope, they have also seen the rejection of notions like domestic violence, pedophilia and people misusing the power of relationships much more than ever before. Relationships are more open, and in many ways are much more moral than ever before. And for this we should be thankful.

[Monkey Angst]

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it would seem that the cycle is inevitable.

I don't share that particular view, but if you do believe the cycle is inevitable, why not at least enjoy the ride?

[enLight]

My main concern with enLight's argument was that he sees something unique about this generation - as a descent into decadence.

I actually would not blame this generation as the harbingers of the descent. I think it began much earlier - perhaps with the 60's generation, and possibly way before that to the turn of the century and the days of the progressive labor movements. The key idea is that the purpose of Western civilization, in the 20th century, shifted it's primary focus from fulfilling a dynamic common cause (that might require personal sacrifice) to serving the individual in his pursuit of happiness.

...if you do believe the cycle is inevitable, why not at least enjoy the ride?

Well, I'd rather fight it than accept it. As Claude McKay wrote in If We Must Die, I'll face the descent "Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!"

[David]

I also think that all modern-day beliefs should be fully justifiable on the basis of scripture and reason alone.

Whose reason? Your own, I presume. This is precisely what you dismissed as “slander”. Every Protestant becomes his own pope and there are as many different sets of beliefs as there are Protestants, since no two individuals will interpret the whole of scripture identically.

It's pointless to discuss this specific matter further. You have made yourself the ultimate authority in determining and interpreting scripture. As for myself, I will continue to rely on the authority which Our Lord Himself appointed almost 2,000 years ago.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The Catholic Church believes in reason too, CR. It is the only way, outside 'direct divine intervention' that the Bible can be interpreted.

Principles that the Bible teaches are derived through reason and by hermeneutical processes that are themselves based upon reason.

If you reject reason, then you reject the Catholic faith as well as the Protestant one.

I don't need a Pope to be infallible for me. I have the scriptures, and I have my friends and a church which continue to work through and debate the meaning of scriptures through knowledge and well-reasoned argument. This results in a vibrant, and also united faith.

You can pooh-pooh it if you like, but it is precisely the idea that Protestants believe whatever each individual wants which I reject as slander. The only ultimate authority of God's word *is* God's word, and the only way I will understand what it says is through examining it closely and reasoning through it.

I would rather look through the Bible and stack up the reasonable arguments that it may provide for and against contraception and hear those of others, than listen to a Polish playwright with Parkinson's tell me what to believe, because some church, whose foundation upon 'Biblical authority' is dodgy at best, has said it is bad and I should 'just accept that'.

[Boondock Saint]

There is a great deal of sex on television and in movies and of course in society ... after all without sex society would cease to exist.

The Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants along with any other Christian sect naturally will not approve of the 'MTV' culture which btw is actually more conservative then their parents ... yes indeed MORE conservative ... to an extent anyway.

The Europeans I have spoken with in person actually consider Americans rather 'uptight' about sex ... the Euro girls I have met consider 18 or male partners (thats quanitity not age) by the age of 22 as 'avg.' ... now these girls could have been talking out of their butts for all I know but you wont find an American girl openly admitting to more then 8 partners by that age (true or not) ...

So its actually Europeans who lead the world in openness to sex with most likely the US coming in third behind the Australians ...

Was that off topic?

Now the Orthodox are most likely seeing a decline in their churches which means less money in their coffers ... this of course is a problem for the Orthodox just as it is a problem for the Catholics and the Protestants ... 'God' apparently needs lots of money ... afterall the popes rings dont grow on trees you know ...

A few points and questions ...

- Was the pope actually named in the scriptures? Please point out what book of the new or old testament named a man from Europe as the worlds only connection to God.

- Casual sex is not a step forward for society ... imo its a step backwards, making us more akin to monkeys then the superior species of the planet. A perfect example of this would be the disco era in the US during the 70's which btw led to the world wide pandemic we call AIDS (which gets WAY too little air time) ...

Now I was raised Protestant and have since struck down any belief I ever had in any of the gods including the one called Christ but believe you me, if there is one group that is the very epitome of Christian fundamenntalism it is NOT the Catholics ... but the Protestants. You see Catholics do what they do for the glory of the church ... Protestants go straight to their God ... and do what they do in the name of the Christ ... which is very dangerous.

Sorry for the rambling.

[David]

Was the pope actually named in the scriptures? Please point out what book of the new or old testament named a man from Europe as the worlds only connection to God.

Here you go.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

[Boondock Saint]

Thats it?

Thats what makes the Pope the Pope?

Man you really gotta read into that in order to get the justification for the Catholic church ...

[Maxim Litvinov]

One short article on Matthew 16... (from http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/peterock.htm )

Is Peter the Rock?

The discussion which takes place between Jesus and Peter at Matthew 16:13-19 encompasses one of the most controversial and history-defining passages in the entire Bible: It is the supposed foundation for the papal claim to apostolic succession down through the arduous and painful history of mankind in the Christian era.

The papal presumption here, of course, is that Peter was the intended "rock" upon which Christ's congregation would be built. This presumption is confidently inferred by 6-foot-high letters encircling the interior of the Vatican's massive central dome, declaring in Latin Christ's words to Peter at verse 18: "TU ES PETRUS ET SUPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM ET PORTAE INFERI NON PRAEVALEBUNT ADVERSUM EAM." (English: You are Peter and upon this rockmass I will build my congregation and the gates of (Hades) will not overpower it.)

Swirling insistently around this statement and its context, this grand question of the Christian era persists for many: Was Christ conferring upon Peter papal authority over his (Christ's) congregation?

The following items of related interest may prove helpful to those attempting to resolve this ages-old historical controversy for themselves:

First, it would be clarifying to appreciate the importance of the physical context of the conversation between Jesus and Peter: Assumptions must be made, however, it is reasonable to assume that they were face-to-face and gesturing appropriately, such that, had we been there, (as the disciples were) intended meaning would have been obvious: Jesus was either pointing to himself or to Peter when he said: "and upon this rockmass..."

With this in mind, it is noteworthy that those present during this conversation did NOT subsequently regard Peter as the one whom Christ was pointing to: The disciples shortly thereafter, by clear inferential default, did NOT acknowledge Peter as the "rock" by simple virtue of the fact that their constant disputing among themselves regarding who was the greatest certainly reduced Peter to unequivocal peership. (e.g., Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26)

Paul, although not present during the conversation, certainly acquired sufficient subsequent familiarity with those who were present to assess the matter accurately: His assessment? Christ is the "rockmass." (1 Corinthians 10:4) (Interestingly, while Paul and Peter were both present in Syrian Antioch, Paul publicly upbraided Peter for a certain indiscretion. (Galatians 2:11-14) One doesn't do that to the pope!)

Most significantly Peter (lui meme!) c 30 years later, acknowledged Christ as the "rockmass." (1 Peter 2:4-8)

addenda:

- Augustine, one of the Church's early heavy-weight interpreters of this matter, though at first ascribing the designation of "rockmass" to Peter, later recanted on this position. (see: Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, page 296, re Matthew 16:18, footnote; see also: The Fathers of the Church-Saint Augustine-The Retractions, Book I, page 90)

- It must be aknowledged that, had the supposed "pointee" been anybody else but Peter, (e.g., James, Philip, Bartholomew, etc.) the controversy would likely not have arisen, there being an incorrect supposition among many early translators and interpreters that Peter's name (Greek: petros) and "rockmass" (Greek: petra) meant the same thing. (Aha! Mystic confirmation!) They do NOT mean the same thing. Nevertheless, early and imprecise translations of the Bible (e.g., King James and Douay-Rheims) did not make a distinction. Thus "mystic language" interpretation contributed further to the unfounded awarding of Peter with the papal miter.

- And finally, objectively separating oneself from the controversy certainly helps to clarify the issue at hand. For example, are not Christians (nominal and otherwise) "Christians"?! (as opposed to, e.g., "Cephans," or "Peterians," etc...?)

Makes you think -- if Jesus genuinely wanted the Roman Catholics, their popes and cardinals to have divine authority for evermore, he did it in a kind of vague, casual and misleading way, didn't he?

[David]

I could post articles and links to books supporting the Catholic position, but what would that prove? I don't intend to argue this point here and now. I simply fulfilled a request for a Scripture verse.

[Vivisekt]

Well as an article at Dynasophy.org put it...

Heh. Honestly enlight, i'm suprised to see you speaking highly of that silly website.

You do of course realize that is a White Supremacist website? Almost everything up there is based upon voodoo 'science' from the 50s, 60s, and 70s mixed with inane (yet verbose) babble. Quoting them lends absolutely no credability to your argument as they are a simple cult bent on transplanting itsself to Mars.

A cult, enlight.

A definite symptom of civilization decay is race replacement, which is what we are seeing today in white nations. They are all "multicultural" or becoming so. Since the essential motive of Dynasophy is to preserve and advance the progress of Western Civilization, not surprising is that it argues to preserve the race that built Western Civilization. Dynasophy favors the white for its record of accomplishment.

For reason of ideology the Dynasophy League must select a racial membership, the selection being from the white peoples of Europe and their colonial progeny.

That website has about as much valuable information as the DPRK news.

[Bill Cosby]

Waiting till marriage was acceptable in medival times, when couples started to marry with 12 or so.
Almost every mammal has sex as soon as it gets into adolescence.
NATURE, but nonetheles, I don't like cheap girls ifyaknowwhattimean.