America’s fixation on consumerism and general lack of conscience is seen in the fact that it is replete with sexual dysfunction. One bad decision leading to another. Take abortion for example. Over one million abortions occur annually in the U.S. as just one side-effect to the misuse of sex. The Planned Parenthood Federation website states that 1 out of 3 women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45.  Sexual activity outside of a marriage relationship is a symptom of a larger problem. Furthermore it seems right that the solution to the symptom of dysfunctional sexuality must be commensurate with the cause of that problem.

So our first question needs to be, ‘What is the root cause of America’s sexual dysfunction?’ If the cause is ignorance then the answer is simply education. If the cause is at a deeper level then the answer may involve education but to what extent and what kind (i.e. didactic curriculum, mentoring, etc)? I suggest we start with a conversation.

It may be important here for we the church to define our assumptions.  For example perhaps we should address the basic unit of society as described in the Bible. Is it a person, an individual as the American culture would have use believe? It seems that if not clarified Christians might easily assume that the basic unit of society is the individual since that is the line we are given from the action movies we watch (Rambo, Bourne, Bond, etc) to the way we do elections since before the women’s suffrage movement began. Before that government was representative and the basic unit of representation was the head of a household. I think it fairly clear in whole canon of scripture that the basic unit to a healthy society is a family founded on the union of a man and a woman as noted in the Genesis creation account.

Society is comprised of individuals in relationship but the foundational relationship to which all individuals emanate is the family. To disenfranchise an individual from the family is to expose that individual to pressures that they are not equipped to bear alone. Furthermore, to modify or exchange family roles or responsibilities husband to wife, father to mother, and vice versa can be just as problematic.

It seems to me that the root cause of America’s sexual dysfunction resulting in things like unplanned pregnancy and abortion, as well as a host of other issues, is the loss of Biblical gender identity and the associated and unique responsibility commensurate with each distinctive as one relates to the other. To speak generally about safe sex or responsible sex outside the context of gender role and family is not helpful since it does not get at the real issue. Questions like, “What is Biblical manhood and how should that impact my relationship with a woman or women in general?”

Bottom line, we need to think about reseating the Church’s position on human sexuality in terms of the biblical building block of society (the man and woman marriage relationship—family as opposed to the individual). This means that we must clearly define the meaning of biblical manhood and womanhood. This may be harder to get at in terms of building consensus among other believers because 1) the Church caters to the individuals that make up niche segments of society such as youth, singles, married, seniors, divorced, gay, etc apart from the family dynamic, 2) the Church’s position on gender has either been neutered or worse yet feminized and 3) most American evangelicals hold to an unorthodox theology of egalitarianism, a belief that there is no fundamental difference in function between men and women.

The reality is men are the primary cause for women opting out of having babies. Abortion would virtually dissolve if the fathers of the babies supported the mother. Somehow a large portion of young men in American culture do not feel compelled to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions vis-à-vis the women with whom they have sex and the resulting baby. There is not a sane woman alive who actually wants to have an abortion. But they feel trapped, alone, like they need to have one. It appears from my experience running medical organizations serving women facing unplanned pregnancies that the death of a generation (e.g. abortion) is the result of the death of fatherhood.

Furthermore, the question of unplanned pregnancy itself would diminish radically if men understood the importance of self-discipline, of using their procreative strength within the context of covenant faithfulness and all that the Biblical concept of covenant implies. Marriage is the closest thing we have on earth to understanding God’s commitment to us. He is faithful to us because of who He is (a Faithful Father) and what He chose to do (commit to a people). Men are in the unique, enviable position of being able to emulate God by choosing, yes voluntarily, to commit to a person or group of people as a father and leverage his strength and influence to persevere in that role even under drastic circumstances. It is not dependent on what we do as believers that makes God stay committed to us but rather whose we are–in relationship to Him by His choice, not ours. As Paul said in Romans 3:4, “Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar . . . .” Good, moral life choices result in positive consequences and bad moral life choices result in negative consequences. But either way it reinforces, even reveals God’s covenant faithfulness with His people.

The church and its members in America must reevaluate and square their understanding of masculinity, family, and fatherhood with the Bible if it is to thrive. It can do this by:

-Noting that family and not the individual is the basic building block to society

-Understanding and affirming Biblical manhood and womanhood

-Understanding the meaning and nature of interpersonal faithfulness based upon the Biblical concept of covenant

-The articulation of the role of a husband and wife within that unique and unbreakable union.

It is only after the Church recommits to a Biblical approach to understanding and living family that we will begin to see real progress on the dissolving of the symptoms of our day like abortion.

To learn more about healthy and biblical family roles and how you and your family square with that check out the following:  Family Maturity Path Self-evaluation

It is an eternal struggle inside and outside of mankind but is it really a struggle in which one must choose sides? No. Man is born both as an individual and a social being. He cannot be purely a man of individualist and socialist perspectives. However, it can be said that the West is inclined to the former and the East to the latter.

No one can claim that he is purely individualistic. Rene Descartes attempted in his Meditations on First Philosophy by beginning from the point where he was sure of his existence which is by virtue of being a thinking thing before even proving the existence of God. Nietzsche who is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers and individualists of all time cannot live alone for all time. He stopped his long self-imposed exile and went back to the cities where he met people. Before he went to the countryside to meditate, his experiences with other people and interactions with thinkers of his day would affect his writings. Man is a social being and this strategy is one of the reasons why he succeeded to be the greatest creature to live on earth. By hunting in groups, survival of each individual became essential since this would definitely affect the outcome of the hunt. By staying in temporary communal settlements, animals would have be more wary of humans as a prey because of their large numbers. What I am saying is that, in the end, a person who lives alone becomes less human.

A human being cannot also be wholly oriented to the good of his society without getting benefit from it.Communist governments did not take into account the individual and his will. They just established a dictatorship with economic goals in mind without consulting the people regarding their preferences in labor. In the end, the system failed returning to asomewhat capitalist (individualist) economy. However, reforms are being made in the economic sector whereby people will have more benefits and will be driven not just by profit but also by helping the poor. However, a person cannot be fully altruistic without leaving room for himself. He will feel a sense of a loss of self by not minding his own condition. He might even lose his mind.

Should I help an individual expressing need or not? Would I be meeting an urgent need or am I encouraging the state of conditioned begging? Although none would disagree that the former is a general responsibility and the latter an irresponsible mistake, the decisive judgment underlying acts of charity is often hard to mitigate.
While driving on the streets of Ahmedabad I am faced with the question at every traffic intersection, at every parking lot, in front of every commercial outlet. When is it appropriate to place a coin in an extended palm and when is it justifiable to lash out at the face pressing against your windshield? It might be sensible not to placate the urges of an able-bodied adult but conversely should children be given alms? Is it more important to teach children the ethics of earned wages or should I just given in to the emaciated infant asking for food? Sure,  adult beggars must be discouraged goes the general wisdom but what if you can see a child close to tears from hunger and weather exposure in their arms? Most say that it is unequivocally wrong to give money at all times. But then is it equally wrong to distribute food and clothing?
An all pervading solution to the dilemma still eludes me after lengthy contemplation. I swing between the two attitudes, sometimes giving away all my change, some food, or a quilt and on other occasions adamantly looking the other way.
However, this grassroots attitude to distributing aid poses a bigger question in my mind.

If i cant figure out a general guideline for tackling beggars i encounter on the street then how can i figure out which country in distress must be provided with aid or not? No one will dispute that natural disasters like the one in Haiti after the two major earthquakes must be helped in all possible ways but what about so called ‘man-made disasters? International aid for civil disasters has been a highly disputed area of foreign affairs in all ‘developed’ (quote rich) nations of the world.
For example, I wonder if, when i reach out to advocate for aid to the failing states in Africa, am i genuinely helping them climb out of their dismal condition to the point where they can learn to feed their own people or am i teaching them to rely on the kindness of ’strangers’ for their survival? OR
As an Indian must i join in the mainstream attitude that is vehemently against US aid to Pakistan in its war against terror? By providing aid are ‘we’ (US allies) fighting the cancer of terrorism by helping Pakistan or are ‘we’ (Indians totally antagonized by Pakistani governance, ISI and the Army) unwittingly feeding the disease and helping it spread? If i say that Pakistan’s governance cannot adequately act in accordance to the urgencies of the time, will i be viewed as a biased Indian or a disgruntled global citizen?

For most people around me the answer is simple. They will press a coin in the palm extended in front of them all the while hoping they didnt catch any germs while at it and quickly walk away but will refuse to support their governemnts when they wish to extend aid to Africa (especially those who cheat on Income tax and blame the government on ‘looting’ them). However, we Indians do want international aid, either from our ‘western allies’ or their financial tools, such as the IMF to extend loans for our economic development programs. Moreover, we insist that we be called a developed nation but ask for leniency when tackling critical global issues like decreasing carbon emissions and industrial waste treatment. but forgo any interest we must pay, and if asked to repay out national ebt we cry bloodly blue murder and blame IMF for resorting to neo-colonization.

We can never really know whether we are teaching someone to fish or providing them with a single meal when we cash out. The failed states are financial black holes – no amount of foreign aid will improve their economies much less be an effective deterrence of terrorism. Thus the conclusion is – Don’t mete out alms to beggars on your streets. Leave other countries to deal with their problems. Let them learn to feed themselves and fight their own enemies. Tough love they say is better than pampering.
Who is the lazy one? The one who is begging or the one ignoring the beggar or worse… Dispensing some change in order to pet one’s own ego?
Responsibility i believe, is a two edged sword. At the risk of being blatantly idealist, i wonder whether we are merely responsible for ourselves or also for those weaker than us? Is our preservation our only rightful duty or does the meaning of humanity lie in the act of sharing?
The answer is glaring in my face but i want to ignore it because its too much trouble. There IS a middle road says the idealistic side of my mind. There is a way in which i can supplicate my own instinct by helping out someone in need while making sure that the one i help is ready to help herself.
I could adopt a street urchin, feed clothe and educate her. My sustained effort will ensure my adopted child’s accountability. One person helping another would go a long way to solving the problem. But the cynical side of me counters, who wants to invest that much time, money and energy into a stranger? Who wants to invest in the growth of another person, let alone encourage their government to help another nation state?
So i swallow a bitter pill. I tell myself i wont tell others to do what i wont do myself. The day i go out of my way and invest in the future of a disadvantaged child that presses her dirty starved face against my windshield i will be able to say with confidence that my country CAN effectively help another country. But as I am too lazy to do that i might as well ignore the African states and denounce Pakistan as a corrupt state. It’s the easier option.
Meanwhile, people are starving as i drive past them. But thats alright i have a solution and i’m sticking to it.