Stormy Days for Evangelicals, or Not?

                     Stormy Days for Evangelicals, or Not?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Marietta Journal, 4/1/18

            Recently a friend remarked that because of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Revolution, most Americans hardly realized that the Sexual Revolution was taking place.

            During the ‘60s and early ‘70s our minds were on Martin Luther King, racial turmoil, Jane Fonda’s endorsement of our enemy, North Vietnam; and Walter Cronkite’s nightly report of our Vietnam dead.  All the while, Hugh Hefner was beginning to turn America’s sexual attitudes upside down.

            “Make love, not war” was the chant of college students around the country.  “Free love” was in the air.

            Troops returning from Vietnam, whether severely wounded or lifeless, were unheralded.  Some were spat on.  Other than Governor Ronald Reagan of California, there were few if any public officials who openly challenged the college protestors.  

             Somehow, the Civil Rights Revolution affected me more than Vietnam, as dreadful and endless as the war had become.  I had seen enough injustice to believe that Martin Luther King was sizing the picture up accurately.  Except for a few of his lieutenants who later became rank racists themselves, King’s agenda, in my estimation, was long overdue.

              In 1967-68, teaching in an all black school deepened my concern about racial injustice.  News that my college roommate had been injured in Vietnam and was on his way home created in my mind a tug of war.  When would we either win or depart this eternal Southeast Asian conflict?  But when, also, would the region I loved and grew up in acknowledge its failings and grant respect to black citizens?

            While Americans were consumed by either the Vietnam War or the civil rights struggle, Chicago’s pajama-clad Hugh Hefner continued his march toward “sexual freedom.”  His work and person received accolades from the media and, of course, from Hollywood.  Hefner was considered a liberator.  His Playboy Magazine and Playboy Mansion brought little embarrassment to a changing culture.

            Hefner’s New Morality, which Billy Graham dubbed the Old Immorality, raised such questions as “What’s wrong with the human body? Why shouldn’t we look at pictures of nude women? 

            As Playboy, Playmates, and Playboy Bunnies proliferated, so did the concerns of conservative, evangelical Christians.  While the Roaring Twenties had produced a significant break in tradition (think “flappers” – women who danced but also smoked and drank), its boldness was eclipsed by the dark clouds of World War II.  The Sizzling Sixties lingered, however, reaching deep into America’s traditional values and toppling long-held beliefs about sexuality and morality.

            Hugh Hefner should have died proud.  His soft porn led to hard porn.  AT&T loves it; movies utilize it; smart phones provide it; fortunately, Hilton Hotels have recently forsworn it.

            Yes, the Sexual Revolution is over and both sides lost.  Marriages have been diluted; homes have lost joy and unity; fifteen year olds have lost their innocence; infidelity has been ramped up.

            Why then is the media astride such a moral high horse?  Why aren’t they happy about the fruit of their friend, The Hef?  It’s true that Donald Trump has lived the Hugh Hefner life, yet his media accusers and finger pointers had no problem with the seed planter, Hefner.  For five decades he was their darling.  Today, their darlings are Hefner’s Bunnies and porn stars.  The bunnies and porn stars are OK; their former consensual partner – a playboy, the president – is not OK.  Why was this standard not held for Kennedy and Clinton who are still adored by the media?

            Evangelicals, according to certain media critics, should disengage from Trump on moral grounds.  Think about that for a moment.  (I can supply media names upon request, as though that’s needed.)

            No, evangelicals had to make a choice in the last presidential election.  Not all of us made the same choice.  Arguing, however, that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for conservative Christians is odd in the extreme.

            As for who is consistent and who is not, why has the media obsessed over Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, having ignored Bill Clinton’s accusers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick?

            I for one will not allow the media or fellow evangelicals to shame me for something which five decades they ignored or gaily endorsed.

            Supporting Trump doesn’t mean that evangelicals are “trusting in princes.”  It means, among other things, that they could not support a candidate or a party that was cavalier about the unborn and who “trusted in princes” (the government) for virtually everything.

            As well as being a communicator, Trump is a clarifier.  Comfortable in his own hedonistic skin, he has laid bare the hypocrisy of his critics and revealed the forgiving spirit of his evangelical supporters.

Roger Hines

3/28/18