On July 29, 1990 Lou Guntzelman, Pastor, Good Shepherd Parish inMontgomery, Ohio gave the following address to his congregation.

If you letit, it will provoke your thinking deeply as it has  mine all of these years. It is especially importantas we come to the most important election in our lifetime. Please give it yourtotal attention and send it throughout the nation.                                                 Pn

Go ahead:  Cross the line, pay a moral price

There is a line that runsthrough every society. Whether that society is in the middle of Africa or atthe north pole, whether it exists in this century  or in past or future centuries, every societyhas a line. It is a very important line.

On one side is what thepeople of that society consider moral, and on the other side what they considerimmoral; on one side what is considered good and beautiful, and on the otherside what is vulgar, ugly and destructive. On one side is what is sacred andvaluable, and on the other side what is trivial and base.

It is also a movable line. Itcan be, and actually is, moved by the people of a society. If we pull that linetoo close  to ourselves, then we bind up,suffocate and restrict ourselves; we become rigid, scrupulous, unhappy withlittle creativity, joy or spontaneity. For with it drawn close and tight,almost everything is then located on the other side of the line and isconsidered immoral and unseemly.

However, if we push that lineback too far, we also disrespect and hurt ourselves as well. For then we permitall the things that were immoral, antisocial, ugly and violent to surround usand even be welcomed in our midst. Then nothing is sacred or valuable. Where,then, do we place that important line? An old Latin saying puts it well, “virtus stat in medio,” “virtue stands in the middle”. Trying to find thatmiddle ground becomes the endeavor of society.

I have been thinking a lotabout that line lately, have you? When I heard Roseanne Barr disgrace ournational anthem as a joke, I thought of that line. When I hear the filthylyrics of the group, “2 Live Crew,” that put down women and make sexuality anact of violence instead of love, I think of that line. When I see peopleactually pay admission to listen and laugh to the alleged humor of an AndrewDice Clay, I think of that line. When I observe humans acceptingly admire aphotograph by Robert Mapplethorpe  of oneman urinating into another man. I think of that line. When I see a society beso approving of abortions as a means of controlling births, I think of thatline. We have become so calloused to the dignity of human life, that if I stoodhere with an American flag in one hand , and a live fetus – a developing human –in the other, many people would find it objectionable to burn the flag butperfectly fine to destroy the fetus. If I have the “choice” of destroying the fetus,should I not also have the “choice” of destroying the flag?

I think that line is beingpushed back farther and farther and farther, and there are few of us who object.If someone should object  to what ishappening, they feel the crushing weight of public and peer pressure.

They are laughed at, cajoled,accused, “What are you a religious fanatic?” they are asked. “Don’t you knowthis is 1990? Get with it!” or “Are you psychologically repressed or a “goody-two-shoes?”

A more recent threat hurledat those seeking to reinstate that important line in our society is the threatof being un-American or in favor of censorship. “This is a free country!” Ihave my rights to say and do what I want!,” is a familiar cry today. “What areyou trying to do, chip away at the Constitution and Bill of Rights?”

You know, we Americans have aconfused notion of what freedom means. We think it means the ability to do whatwe want. That is untrue. Freedom is the ability to do what we ought, license is the ability to dowhat we want. And sometimes what we want and what we ought to do, are two verydifferent things. Those who believe that we are creatures who have come ultimatelyfrom the hand of God believe there is a certain “ought-ness” to thatrelationship, that we “ought” to choose to carry out the will of that One whomade us.. We are free to choose that “ought-ness” or not, but our choosing itdoes not turn our choice into virtue.

Though in my own humannessand pride, I too often resist that line delineating the valuable from the basein our society, I believe in it. I likewise believe that I, we, have theresponsibility of restoring it to a healthier place in our land. We aresuffering and our children will suffer all the more. Perhaps it is time tocheck and see where that line is in our own hearts. Secondly, to pay closeattention to living it out well in our families. Thirdly, we need to see wherewe want it drawn in our own society. “This land is your land, this land is myland….” we sing, and it is. The people of a society are responsible for the integrityof their own land.

Whether we realize it or not,we have great power in establishing that line in our land. We have three greatsources of power that work very well in changing things. Three of the greatcatalysts or powers for change are: to speak up, to vote, and to determine towhom we pay our money. We have the power to speak up in letters to ourrepresentatives, newspapers, executives, companies that sponsor programs, etc.

We have power to vote outpoliticians who seem not to have drawn a “line” in their own lives, and cannotrecognize the need for one in society. Personal integrity does matter ingovernment . It is often the difference between a politician and a statesman.Finally, one of the most influential vehicles of power is as close as ourwallet. Refusing to place money into the one hand of those who with their otherhand are pushing back that line in society, will really get their attention.Before our society is desensitized any further, before grossness is loosed allaround us, we need to say firmly with our actions and words, “That’s enough!”