Great title and excellent topic, Alex. Thank you!

Till now I have known nothing about the Pitcairn Study Center at Pacific Union College. Would like to know more.

Following up on your references, I found that the "Epoch Times" recently quoted Herbert Ford, Director of the Center, as follows:

"This has been a matter of many years. The people of Pitcairn would not have given it the weight the outside world has given it in terms of questions of right or wrong."

As one who believes that there are at least some moral absolutes that human reason apart from Scripture or any other form of revelation can discern, I find this comment very interesting.

I wonder if Ford believes that his views were accurately reported.

I would like to hear more from others on this, both about the specific situation at Pitcairn and about the general issue ethical relativism.

I do not know Ford personally; however, I have longed admired his contributions to Adventist journalism.

Thanks again, Alex!

Dave

Absoulte moral standards? Give me a break! Those of us who don't live on Pitcairn should mind our own business.

Is not this "Garden Paradise" much like the fabled Garden of Eden? Certainly, in the beginning of humankind, there was incestuous relationships and probably much more. Judging this situation is reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies." Humans will always adapt to the particular circumstances in which they find themselves. Human needs aren't curtailed by the normal constraints in populations of thousands or millions. Such isolated communities (see the polygamous groups of Fundamentalist LDS) revert to structuring their own conduct codes.

Interesting that for many years, and even today, Pitcairn Island has been hailed as the SDA island. Perhaps we will hear less about it's religiosity in the future.

I think, given the evidence -- even granting the culture and British bumbling -- that one can make some value judgments here. Before folks conclude, I'd encourage a careful reading of the article, which I've done now, as well as reading Ford's press releases which add something, I just not sure what yet.

Hey Dave, wouldn't this be a really interesting case study for Adventist ethicists?

Alex

This WOULD make a great case for discussions of ethical relativism!

We often use female genital alteration [Those who practice it don't like us to say "mutilation."]. This could be even better.

The reports that in the Islands grown men in public vistited "the pleasures of Venus" on twelve year old girls should get us thinking and discussing.

How does that differ from the virtually open childhood prostitution in some nations today? Why do we condemn these people but not those at Pitcairn?

P.S: Why is there "edit" in red following my earlier post on this thread? Can anyone edit what I've written?

Thanks!

Dave

Many many thoughts emerge from reading this sad story. Not the least of which is the notion that it seems, on the island, and in their history, sex was really just a diversion; a pleasant activity; not necessarily connected with love, commitment, or sacred bond. Yet, looking at the way sex is portrayed so very often in practically all our own media, (something we’re told is abhorred by the Muslim culture) what’s the difference?? Casual, recreational, without commitment or holiness…

Sex as holy; imagine that…

At a certain level I suppose I can sympathize with the men who acted in ways they had been brought up; socialized by a culture so different from our own. And amazing how often the men, when questioned, said very self-incriminating things. (No “miranda rights” in British law I guess??) If one does what he does not believe IS “wrong”, by what right do the rest of us judge them? It is interesting how long the authorities knew there was trouble brewing on the Island, yet kicked the ball down the road for some future authority to deal with.

Kinda makes one wonder how God is going to apply His “immutable law” come “judgement day”. Maybe there really is some kind of “sliding scale” justice?

And yet… Having daughters myself, there is this visceral and intense “protective reflex” that exists deep in one’s psyche to both recognize the “danger” (perhaps because we recognize the impulse within ourSELVES??) and the desire to protect. I mean, what father would knowingly allow his daughter to be raped? (though it seems they didn’t even have a concept of rape…) Why did this not take over among the fathers of these girls? Mothers too can get pretty darn protective themselves. Curious, and troubling. 

While a big fan of free market societies, it does have its evil propensities if unmixed with morality. Belief in and respect for private property rights (as well as “dignity” rights) is foundational to be sure; but what if human beings themselves come to be seen only as something akin to property? Objects to be used and valued for their usefulness only? Something like that must have been at play in the social conditioning of the men. And all with the tacit “approval” (?) of the women on the island. Or maybe, not knowing any other way, the go-along-to-get-along dynamic was deeply ingrained… Interesting too how so many of the women were initially very much in favor of the investigations and exposure of the truth about what was going on, later stopped cooperating as they realized how deeply the retributive justice was going to affect them and their lives. Basically everyone would have family of some sort locked up in that jail.

All very interesting -- and troubling.

Maybe sort of like the last words of the book of Judges; every man did what was right in his own eyes...

It shouldn't be too difficult to assume, yes, even realize that the "be fruitful and multiply" command had to have encouraged incest. How long this was the custom, GOK (God only knows).

Hi my friend Bob,

You said,"While a big fan of free market societies, it does have its evil propensities if unmixed with morality."

Would that not be true of any "economic system"? I suggest the problem is in the "nature" of mankind not their economic system. Is it not true that a system might be more conducive yet not the cause? Rape,incest,etc.have existed in every country and economic system I have visited...dare say Cuba and China also.

Regards

Would someone care to speculate how the command to "be fruitful and multiply" was obeyed if not by incest?

But incest maybe, by rape hardly. Tom

Well Elaine,

I guess you have to say there is such a thing as "situation ethics"! Better choices and in that case... "the only 'apparent' choice."

What makes sex "moral" at "any" given time? Is it not what God "allows" at that given time?

Tom, that we do not know for sure. However, there was rape recorded later on in the Bible.

Who were the Nephilim that consorted with the "daughters of men"? Always by consent?

Not only does this story provide a good starting point for discussion of ethical relativism it also is instructive for consideration of gender justice. It is helpful to read the opinion piece by the woman who "broke" the story back in 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/opinion/29birkett.html?scp=1&sq=Pitcai...

While the Mormons have to deal with the stories of the lost teenage boys at the fringes of their culture, we have lost girls. How can we address that situation as Adventism grows in the Southern Hemisphere?

Bonnie

Well,
Unless you accept the "Living Bible" they were the son's of Anak.

Pat, how do you or anyone else know for certain what "God allows"? If we do the best that we know in the circumstances, does not God understand? That could be wide enough for a Mack truck to drive through.

Well,

It "seems" He "allowed" for legitimate procreation with a brother or sister and I "infer" it was considered "moral" at the time soon after the fall. Later it was not.(Israel's laws) Later God allowed for divorce through His designated leader Moses...Christ says in the beginning it was not so...thus the NT "prescription" for God's "best plan."

"Allowed" meaning... within the proscribed framework given to His people at the given time. (not "allow" in the sense of all of the various events and possibilities happening in the world)

No,everything is not "black and white." We respond by walking in Faith depending on His gracious correction...don't we?

That's my understanding anyway.

Does anyone know FOR CERTAIN whether the men who got sexual pleasure from the girls gave it to them too? If they did, wouldn't this make a big difference. If everybody gets and gives great sex, what's the problem?

Nothing wrong with good sex "Sageo". God just says it is to be in a committed marriage relationship in the NT...the situations here described is "twisted."

Bob
I think it often helpful to distinguish between judging the act or deed, on the one hand, and judging the actor or performer of the deed, on the other. Good people do bad things and bad people go good things. I think God may be most interested in what kind of people we are. Agree?

Elaine

The Bible doesn't tell us about the sexual mores in Adam and Eve's immediate family. The record implies sexual activity that lead to pro-creation that we to identify as incest--we are the result of incestual relationships. In that same immediate family murder was recorded. However, a sin a monsterous as rape is not.

Of course there was a great deal of begetting in the first chapters of Genesis--reads almost like the Song of Songs.

Incest has to do with eugenics Rape has to do with criminal assualt.

I'm glad that this Dutchman found a Swede singing special music in the Youth Tent at the New York Campmeeting. We were married 11 months 11 days after I hear her sing. I've had a song in my heart ever since. To assure everybody, there was consent, there was family approval, there was church blessing, and the pledge was made before God and 50 witnesses, and recorded in the records of the State of New York. Unfortunately, no where is it mentioned that I was smiling when I said "I Do" I'm still smiling. Just got word that we are expecting our second Great Grandchild. Please God from Whom all blessing flow. Tom

Tom:

A second Great Grandchild? Splendid! I'm glad you went to that [SDA?]New York Campmeeting. What a difference that made!

Every One:

I emailed Herbert Ford, Director of the Pitcairn Study Center at Pacific Union College, about the issues we are discussing in this thread. Here, except for some very brief personal references, is what he wrote back. I find his remarks very thought provoking.

"The quote you cite from the "Echo Times" would be very close to what I said, if not exact. It is a statement of fact rather than representing my own values. I feel no burden to defend it or elaborate on it.

If you find something in the following you feel is useful in that regard, then please feel free to use any part or the whole as you see fit.

Early-age, consensual sexual activity has occurred on Pitcairn Island from the days the mutineers landed there in 1790. One had in the island’s then new inhabitants, Polynesian women whose cultural norm was that such sexual activity began from about age 10, and renegade British sailors who were seeking sexual activity whenever possible.

Those facts became a way of life on Pitcairn; there is plenty of evidence to trace it right up until at least the very latter part of the 20th century.

The Pitcairn women through the years, to only a slightly lesser degree than in 1790, continued to accept as normal the ways of the Polynesian women, and the biological urges of the men continued full-blown from the earlier example of the mutinous sailors.

Because of their isolation and lack of contact with the outside world, the Pitcairners did not appreciate, nor when a few of them knew differently, did they accept the “age of consent” and “just say ‘No’” governance of sexual activity that came to rule in the outside world.

It is true that Adventist missionaries, and, later, pastors assigned to the island, preached the sin of immorality, but in their simplicity, lack of outside knowledge or pressure, and always-present urges, most of the Pitcairners didn’t see their centuries-long ways in this area of life as being sinful or in any way legally wrong.

All of that has led the Pitcairners to not give this matter the same weight the outside world gives and has given it for some time.

Now, by dent of seeing three (at present, and previously, five) of their men in the island jail they are realizing that things must change. Whether this is a “heart” change, or one brought on by way of legal cudgel is uncertain.

I might add that there is a strong feeling among more than three fourths of the present island population that the men put on trial were wrongly tried and convicted based on, in at least some of the cases, false testimony.

They also cannot understand why their governor (who sits some 4,300 miles away from them in Wellington, New Zealand), would decide that the British-written Pitcairn Law they had been living under for so many decades - until the trials began – should be done away with as it was in favor of the same law that governs downtown London.

The Pitcairn Law has provision for trying cases involving wrongful sex, and a number of earlier trials involving sex going back at least half a century held successfully under it.

They also cannot understand why their governor, who they feel should be working in their best interests, would invite a cadre of those they consider as sensationalist journalists to the island to “cover” the trials.

The resulting sensational stories that appeared throughout the world have, they feel, held all Pitcairners up to world-wide public hatred, ridicule and contempt."

This is me, Dave, again:

Things may be more complicated that they first appear. Perhaps we should at least consider that possibility.

Thank You, Herb and Everybody!

Dave

Sorry to be back so soon, but Herb Ford's commentary raises these questions for me that others may be able to answer:

Were the men who were convicted of wrong doing in fact acting within their own culture's moral standards? Or by Pitcairn's own norms were their actions impermissible?

If they violated Pitcairn's own standards, they themselves were rightly put on trial and found guilty.

But if they didn't, Pitcairn's moral standards, not the men themselves, were put on trial.

Is this fair? If so, why? If not, why not?

This has made me think quite a bit more about our serious lack of knowledge about female sexuality. We really don't know very much about the healthy maturation of sexuality in girls and women because the process is so overshadowed by male sexuality. Honestly there is nothing in the account I read that leads me to believe that the girls there were allowed to control their own bodies. Young girls may be interested in exploring the pleasant feelings they get but that is a far cry from wanting to be "broken in" (a term that makes me sick) by an older man. It is very difficult to separate out a girl's growing interest in pleasure and a desire to please those around her. I think it is a pretty safe bet that most girls were not experiencing "mutual pleasure" by having sex with a guy twice her age in an outhouse. I do believe that a healthy maturation in girls involves recognizing that girls too desire sex and experience pleasure but they must be given the opportunity to set the boundaries and limits. They must have TIME to move from the recognition that certain things feel good to wanting to share them in intimacy with another human without men pressuring them in the meantime. I'm sorry but it sounds very much like a male fantasy acted out here where the young girls were seen as serving the needs of older men. It may have been the cultural norm but there have been lots of cultural norms throughout the ages that have been decidedly unhealthy for the women that have endured them and the men that have perpetrated them.

Hey Pat:

Oh yes; I think you are quite right when you say:

“Would that not be true of any "economic system"? I suggest the problem is in the "nature" of mankind not their economic system. Is it not true that a system might be more conducive yet not the cause? Rape, incest, etc. have existed in every country and economic system I have visited...dare say Cuba and China also.”

The human flaws exist and manifest themselves in any and all economic systems. Sorry for writing such an ambiguous thing…
I have been pondering the mindset necessary to allow one to treat another human in this way. And I guess I’m just fascinated by the complex interplay displayed by the human species of their ethics and morality and religion and theology and economics and quests for power and so on. So my first thought was that these women are being treated as property. But the problem is likely far deeper than this. It seems the the notion of property rights is quite biblical. But underlying much of our thought on property rights is the notion of freedom. Reading the Ten commandments for instance, one finds that the idea of stealing or coveting makes little sense unless in the milieu of real property rights. However, property rights don’t mean much unless one is free to do with that property what he thinks is best. So freedom seems implicit. And economic freedom (individuals have economic freedom when they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others) seems to work best where there is a clear notion of property rights.

So the idea of owning another human seems inherently antithetical to the freedom that is implicit in the 10 Commandments, (if one choses to read economic theory into them…) and yet look how easy and common slavery has been in so many many cultures and times. Even to the point where Christ doesn’t seem to explicitly condemn it. In fact, I’m wondering if the command not to commit adultery is not also a subtle nod to the idea of women as property. Very common in ancient days it seems. Also in certain modern cultures.

So clearly I’m just thinking out loud here Pat: it seems to me that property rights, properly understood, must recognize the rights of OTHERS too for the whole thing to work. But, that means an ethic that sees other humans as equal. Enter the creation doctrine (celebrated on Sabbath!) as the basis for equality. Which should lead to behaviors NOT like that seen on Pitcairn. ie, those girls should, logically, have the right to their own bodies and have the right to say “no”. So clearly, this becomes more about pleasure, domination, power, lust, and so on… How might you see these wandering thoughts of mine??

But clearly, as you say, abuses of humans rights to decide for themselves (freedom and dignity) can be abused in any economic environment...

Hi Dave:

You said

“I think it often helpful to distinguish between judging the act or deed, on the one hand, and judging the actor or performer of the deed, on the other. Good people do bad things and bad people go good things. I think God may be most interested in what kind of people we are. Agree?”

Well sure: it’d be pretty hard to disagree.

But of course many questions emerge from that assertion right? In some ways, what kind of people we are IS reflected in our deeds. Maybe part of what’s going on in Matt 25. (the sheep/goats deal) Except that ALSO in Matt (chap 7) is just the opposite idea: yeah, you DID these good things, but depart from me -- why? -- because I never KNEW you!! So at some level then we are expected to do the RIGHT things and for the right REASONS… One wonders just how many shades there are “in-between”… (Lord I believe -- help my UNbelief kind of thing??)

Well, that’s a lot of what we argue/discuss here isn’t it?? We all -- even though calling ourselves “Christians” -- have pretty different lists of what is “right” and what isn’t! We fall not just on different sides of the “spectrum” -- but on OPPOSITE sides -- on things like abortion, and homosexuality, and global warming activism as proper reflection of stewardship, and preferences of economic systems in which to “live out our faith”, and on the disrespectfulness (to ones autonomy) of traditional evangelism, and on the place for national “force” as tool of security, and so on and on.

So, being this different, we all advocate for what we see as “best”. Except who gets to use the coercive power of the state to force THEIR own version of things? And isn’t that the precise problem for the Pitcairn Islanders?? Having someone else’s version of morality forced upon them?? The mere ability to throw someone in jail doesn’t necessarily mean rightness.

I don’t know… But I am puzzling here that perhaps we have lowered our standards a bit because these Pitcairn Islanders are Adventist family?? ie, are we as gracious with a Mormon polygamist (or a family of Muslim men who blame their women for being raped and find it necessary to kill THEM as punishment?) as we are with these Adventist Pitcairner’s?? I don’t know, but Ford sounds a bit too much like an apologist to me -- though, not knowing him, if his attitude extends to any and ALL cultures, maybe he’s got a real point…

This is a great story precisely because it forces one to reexamine even that which seems so clear...

Friends: Dave invited me to take a look at my comments. I did. I'll tap out a thought or two about Bob's wonderment about the Pitcairners being "Adventist family." I was on Pitcairn for 10 days in September of last year. At Sabbath School on the first Sabbath there were four people (out of about 40 total Pitcairners on the Island at that time) in attendance. At worship service there were seven. The second Sabbath there were seven at Sabbath School and 16 or 17 at worship, a couple in the first and several in the second worship service being visitors who were not Adventists. The last time I looked in the Yearbook of our faith it numbered 22 people as being members of the Pitcairn Seventh-day Adventist Church. That figure would include the Pastor and family of course. Never has Pitcairn been a 100% "Adventist island," including the years immediately following the change from the principles of the Church of England to Seventh-day Adventist, and the subsequent six calls at the Island in the late 1800s of the missionary ship "Pitcairn." One of the factors that has driven a number of the Pitcairners from church attendance today is that the church elder (a Pitcairner of course) and his wife, comprise one of the two or three families on the Island who believe everything the British have done in connection with The Pitcairn Trials is squeaky clean and "had to be done." That has caused this small group to be shunned in a number of ways by the majority of the Pitcairners. Methinks it would be wrong to call the Pitcairners part of "the Adventist family" except in the sense that we wish the entire world would become part of the Adventist family. Would that it were so that most of Pitcairn today is Adventist, but, sadly, all the observable facts say otherwise. That, of course, says nothing of the people's hearts. And, too, none of it has caused Pitcairn's Pastor Ray Codling to diminish his vigor in seeking for the Kingdom the heart and mind of every person on Pitcairn - the Pitcairners, the New Zealand corrections officers who "guard" the prisoners, the prisoners themselves, the non-Pitcairner governor's assistant, the British police officer, the non-Pitcairner physician, the non-Pitcairner school teacher family, the non-Pitcairner social worker, etc. I pray for Ray's success and invite you to do so too. - Herbert Ford

Two thoughts: First, the owning of another person as property is clearly written right into the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy NEIGHBOR'S wife..." That's because men owned women, not vice versa.

Second, going back to Elaine's comment about implied incest in the beginning, one can't help seeing that the biblcal story is necessarily incomplete. Cain left home to live in the land of Nod and there he found a wife and began building a city, so it would seem that other people besides Adam and Eve had also been created. So many details have been left out of the Bible that it's pretty hard to be dogmatic about life in the mists of pre-history.

Hi Bob,

The way I see the "big picture" is that God claims to be the big “property owner." Ps.50:10-12. As Creator He claims the right to make the rules that constitute righteousness for His people.(All that the Lord has said we will do…he is the “rights giver”) We may certainly disagree with God but I appreciate the comment I heard in seminary that ultimately "true repentance" is saying God is correct and I am a sinner.

As to freedoms and “individual rights” the parameters were described for Israel in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 18 describes sexual sins and of course “rape” is not a perpetrators right. They were to “yell out.” They did have a "right" to their on body.

Slavery is indeed a difficult question in the OT and NT. In the OT slaves did have certain treatment “rights.” They would have no way of having sustenance apart from the system as they had no land… In the NT times I agree that the ideal is “equal rights” under law but that was slow coming. 1 Tim. 6:1, 2 implies to me that certain “social rights and liberties” were to take backseat to the presentation of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Certain things would “gradually” come about without the inflaming of the society and culture to the point of the “good news of Christ” being unable to be preached.

I know…that is difficult and I feel blessed to enjoy the “liberties” already achieved in this country...perhaps it was that gradualism in process that brought:
"We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." …and later the abolition of slavery.

Yes, all must be treated equally under law.

I agree with your thoughts to Dave and “cultural relativism” is a difficult issue that must also evolve to a better form gradually. You would have thought these basic issues would have long ago been discussed and settled though on the Island …Would you not!

Dave

Yes it was the SDA Campmeeting. My dad was building the Girl's Dorm at Union Springs Academy. I was between my Junior and Senior year in Dental School.

My dad build the following SDA buildings: Dormatories at Fox River Academy, James While Memorial Library at EMC. The Lake Union Conference Office Building, The Gym at the old Broadview Academy, The Girl's Dorm At Altantic Union College,
The Gym at AUC, The Administration building complex at AUC,
Faculty Apartments at AUC, The SDA Church At Worthington, Ohio
The SDA Church at Cortland, N.Y. The Girls' Dorm at Union Springs Academy, The Northside Church in Chicago, The Southside Church in Chicago, The New Broadview Academy. The Girls Dorm at the Wisconsin Academy, The Science Hall at Union College, The Girls' Dorm at the Iowa Academy, He was Inspector on the LLU Church, and Young Chapel, The Swimming Pool at La Sierra. He built about a dozon homes in the hills above LLU. I did vacation time work for him on buildings from the James While Library to the Girls' Dorm at Union Springs.

If you ever wanted to meet a man's man's who was a Christian Gentleman with a generous heart of Gold you should have met J. D. Zwemer 1898-1968

Betty and I had a milk shake on Saturday night of the Sabbath she sang. The next noon she joined the family for lunch. Two weeks later I spent the weekend in Jamestown N.Y.

Upon my return, I went to my room to destroy all old photos of pen pals from WWII. Lo and behold there weren't any. I went down stairs and asked my mother: "What happened to all my photos." Mother blushed and laughed. "Tom", she said, "I want you to marry Betty and I didn't want her to see any of those pictures." Mother, I said, "I asked Betty to marry me two days ago and she said yes!" I think her dad is still in shock!" Betty spent a year at Andrews and then we were married and are living happily ever after. At our twenteth wedding anniversary. I got a letter from her dad. It read, Dear Tom, I know you asked me to give my blessing on your proposal of marriage to Betty. I think I said something, but frankly, I can't recall exactly. But on June 30, 1969 you have my warmest blessing. Love Dad. Thank God he passed away before Glacier View. He had been head elder at the Jamestown SDA church for 50 years. Tom

This article has raised many questions about morality, ethics, religion, and our contemporary mores when compared with other cultures.

Do we judge the early biblical stories of polygamy, pimping wives, capturing virgins from enemy tribes for wives? No, we shouldn't because what we deem appropriate and right for our lives today is so far removed from those of more ancient times, that we are unable to grasp their realities. This story should cause us to rethink many of our certainties about ethics and our beliefs.

Of course, there had to have been incest in the beginning; for how long we do not know. Nor should we speculate that God created additional humans because we are very uncomfortable with the idea of incest. No doubt, it was the most natural and only way to procreate and fulfill God's plan. Who are we to judge a people so unlike us in their limited habitat?

The Pitcairn Islanders adapted in their own ways, and while we find them despicable, they might well find much of our lives here in the same manner and utterly foreign to them. We neither condone the hedonistic western lifestyle anymore than their lifestyle which is hedonistic to us.

"So the idea of owning another human seems inherently antithetical to the freedom that is implicit in the 10 Commandments." This has also been refuted in a later post. A wife was ALWAYS considered a property in the OT times and there are many stories illustrating this: a daughter could be given in marriage without her consent or knowledge (a practice still continuing in the same areas of the world today); if she left her husband, he owned the children; if another man took her, it was no less than had he taken a donkey or a goat--it was taking his property that was against the law--she had no voice in the matter. Read the test for a wife suspected of infidelity to see how the Israelites resolved it; where is EVER a mention of a man's infidelity? The Bible never even records it as a sin. In the instance of David taking Bathsheba, it was the divine right of kings to take who they wanted. Esther is held up as a paragon for young girls, and yet she was eventually given to the king for a "trial" period for him to determine if she won his favor. Not exactly what any father here would request of his daughter.

Those who speak with such certitude that ideal sex was limited only to marriage in the Bible, conveniently overlook the actual evidence of early "marriage" in the Bible; or the fact that bigamy and polygamy was marriage only allowed men. If God designed humans with the ability to have sexual pleasure, where in the Bible does it specify it is ONLY to be limited to marriage? While that is obviously the ideal we hold today, to impose that on other cultures of which we know very little, is to rewrite history as we would like it to be.

Elaine

Please reread the book of Ecclesiastes--written by a man well rehearsed in sexual pleasure.

I don't think the Review will make a feature story about Pitcairn very soon--regardless the alleged freedom you find in the Old Testament. A book that neither of us find as definitive of 21st century morality and ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount certainly is far more restrictive of man's sexual explorations mental and/or physical.

It seems to me that the men of Pitcairn are reliving the sordid history of that remote island. I think history has demonstrated similar results from most isolated communities.
Waco, Texas being a recent example. Tom

Herbert Ford:

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Appreciated.

If I may ask: did you find the Vanity Fair essay was reasonably accurate and fair? The SDA angle was merely mentioned to be sure, but from my perspective, I found it troubling that the case first “broke” only when the Adventist ministers 11 year old daughter was raped. Surely he knew about this activity on the Island long before this; so why did he only speak up when it affected HIM and HIS family? That seems troubling to me. (Kind of reminds one of any scandal which breaks out in an SDA church, or conference, or Union, or… “suddenly” folks are wringing their hands and asking “How could this have been allowed to HAPPEN?”)

And while the population is not all Adventist now, in times past their numbers actually were much higher percentage wise if I’m not mistaken. So, I guess my question could morph into asking “what benefit Adventism” if this sort of thing had been going on for years and years in her very midst? Seems rather a “black eye” on Adventism -- does it not?

When all is said and done, might makes right and we have more guns than they do.

So, let's round them up and deport them to places where we can police them. Leave some goats on the island who will turn it into a desert and then die out themselves.

This should settle the problem once and for all. We are talking about less than 100 people. Their way of life isn't worth saving.

Elaine,

"Nothing wrong with good sex "Sageo". God just says it is to be in a committed marriage relationship in the NT...the situations here described is 'twisted.'"

Elaine, as you can see if you were referring to me, I said in the NT and 1 Cor.7:1-4 comes pretty close.

Don't get mad at me! I didn't use to like the teaching either!

PS. Anticipating your next comment, God told me to tell you it did not apply to you if you would be quiet...:~)

Elaine:

I myself suggested that the 10 commandments gave nod to women as property; so nothing to “refute”.

But one must give pause then and wonder how it was that our society has become so “advanced” since those seemingly immoral Old Testament Times? You yourself seem to have no problem seeing scripture as an impediment to social and ethical advancement; not a source of inspiration and insight. So maybe you could share with us how you “got there” given your typically “low” view of scripture. (Not an insult or anything; it’s obvious to all you view scripture differently from nearly all the “rest” of us right?)

As this dilemma takes shape, it seems to me that everyone has the general belief that their own moral and ethical system is the best (else why would they hold it?) And some claim as their “authority” scripture -- as THEY read it of course. Or, holding scripture to just be stories of accumulating wisdom, we must continue to build beyond where our fathers stopped. We must do this with reason and enlightenment. And we have this urge to SPREAD our personal views of ethics and morality to others; for surely “they” will “benefit” from our own enlightenment. So, we condemn/accept abortion; we condemn or accept homosexuality; we condemn/accept” just war”; we condemn/accept -- name the controversial behavior. So Elaine, I’m just wondering to what ethic, what morality YOU are calling us, and based on what authority?

Seems no one is quite willing to come down hard and AGREE with the “punishment” of our Pitcairn miscreants, (or maybe, the boys in prison really are sort of “innocent victims” themselves…) but neither is anyone fully willing to let it go, live-and-let-live. Why not? In a real way, Sage is right: it’s the ones with the power who make the rules. And in our culture, ostensibly, the majority has that power. Except that we all sort of “know” that majorities can be really really wrong on issues of morality. It would seem that vast majorities in WW 2 Germany held some ethics which we abhor. But if majorities get to rule themselves, what business is it of ours?? Or, if some “minority” comes under “our” rule and influence, are we permitted, obligated maybe, to “force” them into “our” moral vision?? Muslims want to do it to us; we want to do it (though far less forcefully it seems… after all, the very countries we “free” seem bent on continuing Sharia law!!) to them to some degree. (Those who disagree with the war are implicitly saying -- are they not? -- that we must let them live with their own morality. It's no business of our own... )

It is very tempting to believe that man is somehow able to extricate himself from all this social tension and conflict and build an heaven for himself right here and now. That with the proper social and economic tinkering and proper carrots and sticks, nirvana should be right around the corner. Except you yourself have pointed out that many ancient cultures have had the corporate wisdom of the “Golden Rule” -- it’s been around for a long time. So why have we not “arrived”? Maybe we’ll just “evolve” our way to heaven??

At some point it seems indisputable that humanity is so flawed it cannot possibly build a proper morality apart from God. This is still the essence of the best Christian apologetic I think (if one likes apologetics). For my money, the best (so far) debate to make this point is by Doug Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens in Christianity Today. (I think you will appreciate this Dr Tom Z -- having brought us your review of d’Souza’s book recently)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

Except that one then has the problem of -- WHOSE view of God’s morality do we go with?? And everyone says -- “mine!” You obviously seem to have solved this Elaine, and it appears, unless I’m mistaken, without reference to a “God” figure; I’m wondering how?? I’m quite serious in my query. Yes, I’m listening to your constant rejection of the notion of selectively taking parts and leaving parts of the OT and NT. And maybe we really ARE very inconsistent in this. But what have YOU got -- that we don’t? Or, maybe what do WE need, that you seem to think you have, that would improve our moral stance??

Anyway, too much time on my hands today!!

I think they needed to be punished. I find the entire story really sad and in our rush to not judge we seem to have forgotten that there were young girls raped here. And girls who were robbed of the right to control their own sexuality. Maybe justice wasn't carried out the best way and maybe these men didn't think that what they were doing was wrong but they still damaged those girls regardless. Intentions matter somewhat but not enough. Now the islanders are mad because their independence is threatened but WHAT ABOUT THE GIRLS? Noone on that island seemed to value looking out for those girls and they were sacrificed to protect a way of life. The whistleblowers are still being ostracized. That is not ok in my book and I think the British gov had every right to step in and say enough. It was clumsily done and the outcome may not have been totally fair but honestly it is hard to drum up sympathy when I read the story of a girl getting held down and raped by boys who think they have every right to "break her in." It makes me down right mad in fact.

Bob, you know I love a challenge!

To address your first paragraph: Yes, Scripture has been an impediment in many areas by the attempt to return to a more ideal, or utopian time which lies only in one’s imagination. History has more than sufficient evidence showing that the total reliance on Scripture, and the interpretation by contemporary peoples, has resulted in reluctance to accept advances in science, and yes, even morals. Where did the abuses of slavery or patriarchal systems need to go outside the Bible to justify the practices?

There is no other way to view Scripture except through our own perspective; to do otherwise is to accept the position of someone else, thus abandoning our own minds to another. Neither of us would be willing to consent to that.

Why and on what basis have you, or any other Christian, accepted the Bible as “God’s Word” or that is to serve as our guide for answers to all questions confronted in our lives? Is it because we were taught that so early? Is it because of internal verification (Scripture is inspired because it says it is inspired)? How do we determine what parts of Scripture are applicable to us today, individually or separately, and what was directed to people of another age and time? Are there timeless principles and some that are guides or rules for a particular time and place?

You ask, “To what ethic, what morality YOU are calling us, and based on what authority?”

Answer: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” While these are in the Bible, they predate the Bible by centuries and are found in at least a dozen cultures: proof that living harmoniously requires that ethic. You know the story of Rabbi Hillel who, when asked to recite the Torah while standing on one leg, gave the Golden Rule and then said: “All the rest is commentary.”

Have not most of the world’s problems, our personal as well, occurred because this rule was ignored? Yes, there are sadists and masochists, but as to the Pitcairn Islanders, the writers of the Torah describe conditions before the flood that certainly were not ideal.

Yes, I should call in another order from Amazon this week (they are becoming weekly, it seems) and get ‘dSouza’s book. I’m now completing Charles Kimball’s “When Religion Becomes Evil” which spares no world religions. We both know that religion can, and has been a force for both good and evil in our world, and that there have been wonderfully moral people that claim no religion. Oh yes, another 700+ page book, I’m now halfway through, is James L. Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.” Still an Orthodox Jew, he shows how recent biblical scholarship has led to radically different interpretations from what people have always thought, and how and why the stories were told and retold to explain their origins: IOW, just like all the other contemporary nations, they too, had their “myths” of who they were. He refuses to hide from these discoveries and shows how ancient biblical interpreters (as they all were when transmitting orally) constructed these stories through the centuries, even millennia.

Lastly, you ask “WHOSE view of God’s morality do we go with?? First, I do not rely on the Bible for my guide to life. The god one finds in the Bible is described in multiple ways by as many writers, so which of those morals are applicable today? I have read much of it, and like any other interesting anthology or topic, it is a goldmine of hopeful ideas, contradictions, and all sorts of genre that defy categorization. Why so many millions have adopted it as their ultimate guide to life and morals is known only to them--for I doubt few have read much of it. One should be selective in reading it as certainly there are books that are not for the depressive personality.

Whether I would say I have solved this, it is always temporary, awaiting newer understanding. There is so much more yet to learn (just as in all disciplines and attainments) and with an insatiable curiosity, I hope to never stop searching, BUT, I do not hope nor even believe that I will ultimately obtain it--it is a lifelong journey. One thing, however, I am at peace and contentment, which one should be at this stage in life that whatever lies ahead I have no fear for the future. If I can continue to respect others as I would wish for myself, what more is there?

Wow

Now we know. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound--even if it is on a small island in a big sea! Tom

One of the more disturbing aspects of the whole Pitcairn situation has to be the role of the SDA Church. The article in Vanity Fair certainly raised many questions in my mind. Given the size of the island and the small population, everyone had to know about the sexual exploitation of the young females as well as the adulterous affairs of their parents. Why was life on the island always portrayed by the SDA Church as a type of idyllic utopia? What was the reaction of Pitcairn pastors to the sexual depravity on the island? Did they report their findings to the conference? Did the pastors participate? If the church knew why didn't they press the authorities to intervene? Why was the church not more forthcoming about conditions on Pitcairn? Was there a deliberate attempt to keep the information covered up?

I understand that Pitcairn is a most unique social setting. I also understand the need for the church to be culturally sensitive. What I don't understand is how the church could apparently ignore such rampant sexual immorality as existed on Pitcairn.

With Jim's questions in mind, someone should re-read everything SDA leaders have said about Pitcairn.

In light of Jim's comment, as a child, I remember in the late 80s going to some Pitcairn celebration or mission Sabbath thing and in the afternoon a large group of people going into a room at Loma Linda University Church and someone getting on a short-wave radio and conversing publicly with the Pitcairn Adventists.

At the mass Adventist level, between the mission boat connection and the famous story and film, it seems to have carried the classic tropes of myth.

It really would be interesting to see what leadership knew about the island and what sort of decision-making happened.

Missionaries catch it no matter what. If they stop Islanders from "breaking in" their twleve year old girls, they get booed for imposing their values on other cultures. If they don't, they get slammed for standing by and doing nothing. What are they supposed to do?

FYI
"The Governor of the Pitcairn Islands is the British High Commissioner to New Zealand, currently George Fergusson. He maintains a representative officer on the island as a link between himself and the islanders. But because the high commissioner does not live on the island, its daily affairs were traditionally taken care of by the magistrate, chairman of the Island Council. Elections for this position take place every three years. After a constitutional revision in 1998, these functions were transferred to the mayor of Pitcairn from 1999 onwards. The Island Magistrate is Simon Young who was appointed by the Governor. Chairman of the Internal Committee is an elected official. Until 30 October 2004, the mayor was Steve Christian; after his rape conviction on 24 October 2004, Christian was dismissed (after refusing to resign). Steve Christian, who claims to be a direct descendent of Bounty mutiny leader Fletcher Christian, was convicted of five rapes, including one of a girl of 12, and sentenced to three years in prison. The charges against the men, one of which dated back to 1972, followed a report by a British policewoman stationed on the island in 1999. The defendants were convicted based on testimony from eight women. Dozens of alleged victims refused to testify.

The three-week trials were held under British law in makeshift courtrooms on the island and presided over by three judges from New Zealand. Steve Christian’s son, Randy, was sentenced to six years for four rapes and five indecent assaults. Len Brown, 78, was convicted of two rapes and sentenced to two years. His son, Dave, was convicted of nine indecent assaults and sentenced to community service. Dennis Christian, 49, the postmaster and another descendant of Fletcher Christian, was convicted of one indecent assault and two sexual assaults he had pleaded guilty to. He was also sentenced to community service. Terry Young was convicted of one rape and six indecent assaults. Judges imprisoned him for five years. Jay Warren, the island’s magistrate, was cleared of indecent assault. Brenda Christian was selected by the Island Council, to be mayor for November and December 2004, until an election was held. Jay Warren was elected on December 15, 2004." Wikpedia

According to the "Vanity Fair" article, the Privy Council in London that upheld the Pitcairn convictions stated that "'It is impossible to believe'” that the men were unaware that “'what they were doing was wrong.'”

So much for ethical relativism!

I wonder if any on the Council had in mind something like Paul's assertion in "Romans"
(2:14ff) "that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness."

I tend to agree with Paul; nevertheless, were it possible, I would like to test his claim by learning from the convicted men whether in fact they inwaradly knew that they were doing something morally wrong.

I know that under the present circumstances we cannot hope to get reliable answers from them, however. That's too bad.

David

If they didn't know it was illegal or sinful why did they try to hide it and/or why did they try to deny it? Tom

Tom:

"Trouble in Paradise" explicitly says that very often the men were quite open about what they had done; to the point of incriminating themselves. Evidence which would not be admissible in the USA. That certainly speaks to the notion they didn't believe it was wrong.
Much of the evidence against the men was the testimony of the women. However, when these women began to realize what the authorities intended to "do to their men" (ie lock them up) many of them withdrew their testimony...

Consider Rom.7:7-13.

Whether the men knew it was illegal or not, from long years of such activity, they were assured there would be no repercussions. Obviously, both sexes were surprised to find out otherwise.

If the women "withdrew their testimony" is no different from what is a frequent example of women who report domestic abuse, and later withdraw those complaints. While it seems irrtational to those of us outside the situation, it may be completely rational to those living in such situations.