By David Hegg
Several events around the nation have led pundits and observers alike to label specific actions “unconscionable.” The word defines what is considered unreasonable, unsuitable, or excessive. To engage in “unconscionable” activity is to go beyond the restraints of a reasonable person’s conscience.
The assumption is that a “societal conscience” sets our culture’s standard for reasonable behavior. We are hearing more and more about it. Manufacturing companies must have an “environmental conscience.” In contrast, those firms that handle our investments have a “moral conscience” that defines their fiduciary responsibility to use our money in a way that conforms to the highest standards of honest business practice. We expect our teachers to have a confident, conscientious attitude toward students, as must doctors toward patients. Each area of society still holds to a certain standard of behavior, and we often refer to it in terms of conscience.
But increasingly, specific displays of conscience are being condemned. When Harrison Butker, punter for the Kansas City Chiefs, dared to affirm that female graduates who chose to dedicate themselves to being great wives and mothers were walking a path of honor, he was soundly upbraided and his ideology labeled unconscionable. And when a bill was introduced in Congress mandating that only American citizens could vote in our elections, detractors said such a thing was unconscionable. And throughout the political run-up to Nov. 5, “unconscionable” is thrown around like rice at a wedding reception.
Maybe the problem is we need to understand more about a conscience. This may help. A person’s conscience is like an alarm clock. You set it, and then it aligns its action – waking you up! – with how you programmed it. The human conscience works the same way even though the newborn conscience has a few things already programmed. For example, you don’t have to program a baby to cry when something is wrong. Neither is it necessary to program their anger when something is taken away from them. These, and other things, come pre-installed on the human hard drive.
But, as we grow, we learn to program our consciences according to the ethical standards of families, friends and society. More to the point, as we become independent individuals, we often reprogram our sense of right and wrong, honorable and dishonorable, acceptable and unacceptable according to what we want or how we feel. What we’re seeing today is a clash of consciences that is, in reality, a clash of underlying ideologies. We are a severely divided country because our citizens have programmed their consciences to allow and endorse competing ideas of morality, honesty and unity.
My question is: Why is it that, in a country that is proud of its pluralism, a conscientious position with generations of historical standing can be openly mocked and criticized with the language of hate and contempt? In contrast, new ethical positions clearly in the minority receive the stamp of conscientious approval.
We are watching our national conscience become hijacked by those driven by feeling rather than thought, by immediate personal desire rather than corporate well-being. Look around, and you will see that the passion of the moment is becoming the accepted ethic as historical standards of decorum are thrown into the fire. What else explains the recent debacle at the opening ceremonies of the Paris Olympics?
Yes, free speech is still the law of the land, but it is becoming increasingly one-sided. It is increasingly dangerous to state openly the social values of the Judeo-Christian position. Some are testing the public waters with the idea that the beliefs of a biblically informed conscience are hate speech. Their actions promote the doctrine that everything must be tolerated except that which threatens the validity of their latest desire.
But here’s the great thing about truth. It will never be eclipsed, either by the opposition of its enemies or the poor behavior of its friends. My prayer is that the conscience of our nation will understand the value of informed discourse rather than insolent invective, of listening and understanding rather than prejudicial rants. We are losing our tie to the anchor of truth, and unless we strengthen our hold, we will drift further off on the waves of disunity and discord.
Local resident David Hegg is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church. “Ethically Speaking” appears Sundays.
