Living in a Sex-Saturated Society

Sex sells, but what does it cost?

In the world of dystopian literature, there are two books that stand out as significant works representing warnings of society’s downfall from two distinctly different sources.  The first, 1984 by George Orwell, presents the “Big Brother” concept in which the totalitarian government oppresses its people with total control over every sector of life.  The second, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, presents the concept of a society which is so obsessed with pleasure that they sedate themselves with sex and drugs to the point that nothing else matters but the next dose of pleasure.  Which is scarier: a pit that we’re trapped in or a pit that we choose to trap ourselves in?

I’ll admit that I think in a sense we are headed in the directions of both novels.  There has certainly been an increase in government control and oppression in our modern society, but there has been an even steeper decline into the world that Huxley feared we would create for ourselves: a driving obsession with pleasure that will ultimately destroy us.

I say all of that to get to this: we as a society, not only in America but in the world at large, are obsessed with pleasure.  That applies in a lot of ways, but I’m just going to talk about the biggest one: sex. 

Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Alfred Kinsey is heralded as a hero of science and Sigmund Freud is honored as the father of modern psychology.  Homosexuality and more recently pedophilia are no longer viewed as perversions but “alternative lifestyles.”  While these things have been around for as far back as history goes, they are becoming rampant at a rate that is nearly unprecedented. 

Here’s the thing: society goes through degradation.  That is a simple fact.  How can we as Christians live in a sex-saturated society while not being of it?  We’ve all heard the ultimatums: don’t have sex before marriage, bounce your eyes, and don’t lust after something that isn’t yours.  That’s pretty simple (if you aren’t too sure about the statements I just made, read Matthew 5:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Hebrews 13:4).  However, there are some things that are being left out in the chanted mantras among high school Bible classes and youth lectureships. 

I once heard someone say that Satan isn’t very original, he just perverts something God gave as a blessing and makes it into something evil and twisted.  I don’t think that’s ever been more true than with sex.  Hebrews 13:4 says “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (MKJV).   This passage is often used to talk about fornicators and adulterers, but let’s think about those that are married for a minute.  Does this say that sex is dirty?  Does this say that sex is evil?  No, much the opposite.  Within the marriage context, sex is part of God’s plan.  The bed is undefiled.  The same was true in the original marriage in Genesis 2:25: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (MKJV). 

What is missing is a respect for sex in its proper abode.  We preach not to have premarital sex and to avert our eyes, which is good and right, but neglect to show where sex is meant to be.  Again, we should be preaching against premarital sex and against lust, but if that’s all we do, we are treating the symptoms and not the disease.  A respect for sex in its proper place will lead us to the point where won’t want the perversion.

Let’s say you marry your high school sweetheart, your first love.  The only person you have ever felt anything for.  You are happily married for years with a healthy, loving relationship.  Then one day you come home and find him or her with someone else.  How are you going to feel?  Betrayed.  Because one of the most sacred parts of your relationship has been violated: the exclusive sexual union.

This is especially important for single people to understand.  When we look with desire upon someone who is not our spouse, we are doing the same thing that the third individual in the previous paragraph was doing.  We have violated them and their spouse (regardless of consent), and robbed ourselves of the loving relationship in which the bed is undefiled.  That should disgust us.  It should repulse us. 

When we get that through our minds, we will no longer see how close we can get without crossing the line. 

We will push sexual perversion away like a piece of green meat. 

We will finally see it the way God sees it.

May that day come quickly

Outlawing Criticism

Sometimes history is relevant.

My last post highlighted the troubling violence in our society, which I attributed to a godless society.  I’m going to revisit one of the first signs that we were going away from God in the modern era, and hopefully challenge one of the biggest giants opposing godly reform in our modern society: Kitzmiller v. Dover.

I know some of you might be staring at the computer screen with a rage comics poker face, completely oblivious to the last statement.  I know you are, but frankly I wish you weren’t.  This is something that we ought to be educated on.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. is a federal U.S. court case from 2004.  The short version of the story is that the Dover area school district had made a textbook supporting intelligent design a mandatory reading, which was challenged on the basis of the First Amendment (no establishment respecting a particular religion).  The court ruled that requiring the book to be read was unconstitutional.  The rest is history.  Now any theory outside of macroevolution is scorned and ridiculed as musings of a moron.

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.  After all, as a Christian I wouldn’t want my kids to be required to read a text promoting Buddha.  Should we be upset about this?  Let’s take a look at the book itself.

Of Pandas and People, the textbook that started this whole debate, is not what it has been proposed as.  Having read my summary, you probably assume that it is basically a religious text, right?  This is not the case.  The book points out several problems with macroevolution, then goes on to propose intelligent design as a viable alternative without pointing to any particular designer.  Here’s my question: do you want your kids to be a taught a theory which has flaws in it, and the book which shows the flaws in it has been banned?  

This is not good science and it is not good education.

Secondly, let’s talk about the legal grounds of objection.  I said earlier that the objection was made on the grounds of the First Amendment, which is often referred to as “The separation of church and state.”  Here’s the kicker: those words are nowhere in the Constitution. 

Here’s what the First Amendment says:

                “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In this circumstance, did Congress make any law respecting the establishment of religion?  No.  As a matter of fact, this text does not respect the establishment of religion.  As a matter of fact, I would argue that the case’s decision was ultimately an infringement of the First Amendment.

In the decision, the following was stated:

The school board was barred from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and 

from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

On the surface, this appears to say that the board cannot force teachers to teach something against their beliefs.  That is good.  However, what does this mean in practicality?  If you are an evolutionist, you’re protected.  You can preach evolution in the classroom until your feet fall off and you collapse of hunger.  Believe intelligent design?  Tough luck.  Done your homework and believe that evolution is flawed?  Too bad.  Your beliefs are not as valid as the evolutionists and therefore you have to teach evolution.  This is respecting establishment of beliefs.  We may not call it a religion, but the same concept is there. 

The unfortunate truth as that as upset as we may or may not be about this case, the damage has been done.  This is why it is more important now than ever to educate ourselves and others about evolution and intelligent design so we can counteract the bias within our current system.  At the end of the day, we cannot blame our society on the school system.  It is the responsibility of parents as well as individuals to educate their kids (and themselves).  We were asking for trouble when we made the education system the parents of our children.

Don’t eat what others feed you.

Before you comment a single word, search the facts.  The facts from both sides.

Intellectual honesty is the path to freedom.

                                                                                                                             

The Birth of a Tragedy

They have my undivided attention.

I remember 9/11 pretty well.  I was sitting in the living room of our old house in Orleans watching the television in horror as my 8-year old brain digested an all-too-obvious yet still terrifying fact: we have been attacked.  I didn’t think it was possible.  America was always an impenetrable fortress in my mind and war a thing of history that wouldn’t ever happen to us again, at least not in my lifetime.  Yet I watched those assumptions melt away before my very eyes.  The worst part was that, at the time, we didn’t know who was attacking us or why.  Even for an 8-year-old child who couldn’t fully understand the situation, it was terrifying. 

I thought that would be a unique event in my lifetime. 

It hasn’t been.

Columbine.  Virginia Tech.  Sandy Hook.  These tragedies struck our hearts at their core as we mourned for the innocent victims mercilessly slaughtered like animals.  Then, while we were busy contemplating gun control, two young men decided to blow up some runners at the Boston Marathon. 

I was horrified. Beyond horrified.  These terrorists didn’t even make a public proclamation like self-righteous jihad killers.  They just wanted to kill some people.  Bloody.  Violent.  Twisted.  Evil.  That’s how we see this, and I concur with every fiber of my being.  I pump my fist along with the crowds who call for their lives as penalty.  I feel disgusted.  I feel wronged.  I feel attacked. 

I am tired.  Tired of feeling afraid.  Tired of feeling in danger.  Tired of feeling wary that anyone on the street could be the next sadistic maniac to pull out a Glock and start shooting people or pull a hunting knife and start stabbing everyone.  None of us “sign up” for life, but none of us would have signed up for this. 

I want to do something.  I want to take all weapons from everyone, take all of the mentally unstable individuals and lock them up, anything to stop this from happening again.  But here’s the honest fact: I can’t stop it. 

If we know a man named Steve will be the next killer, we can’t stop it.  We take the guns, he’ll use a knife.  We take the knives, he’ll use a bow.  We take the bows, he’ll use a hammer.  We take the hammers, he’ll use a club.  It’s pretty hard to outlaw wood.

We’ve been treating the symptoms and not the problem.  The problem is in our spiritual condition.  We as humans are to blame.  We have been acting out in rebellion to God as long as history has come and gone and this is what we reap for our actions.  We have been begging for a society without God.  As He does when asked, He is bowing out, and this is what it looks like.  Is this really what we want?

Quoth the Raven

Since I’m on Spring Break, I have found the time to watch a few movies that I’ve always wanted to see but have never taken the time to see.  Earlier this week I watched The Raven, a film directed by James McTeigue (The Matrix trilogy, V for Vendetta, Star Wars Episode II) starring John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe.  In The Raven, a serial killer is using Poe’s literature as inspiration, matching every detail of his gruesome killings to Poe’s horror stories.  Upon the film’s ending, I found myself locked in mental discussion for a good part of the night.

The film’s depiction of Poe is interesting.  He is an underappreciated and misunderstood writer whose genius the audience accepts, but his world renounces.  He is looked down on as a drinker and a troublemaker, although he does have a few admirers.  He is involved in a relationship with a young girl named Emily, though it is behind her father’s back and she pretends to despise him.  That is threatened to change, however, when she wants to marry him.  That revelation could put Poe’s life in danger from her father, but alas, she doesn’t get the chance.  She is kidnapped by the psychotic killer first.  Thus begins a thrilling chase that will drive the maddened poet to the very brinks of his shaky sanity.

SPOILER ALERT

After many twists and turns, Poe faces the killer.  Ironically, the killer is an admirer who considers himself an artist much the same as Poe.  In a desperate search for his beloved Emily, he makes an agreement with the man.  He drinks poison in exchange for being told Emily’s location.  He is able to find her before the poison takes full effect, and later dies on a park bench, but not before giving a concerned man information to give to Detective Fields that leads him to the killer’s identity and subsequent arrest.  Given that this is a take about Edgar Allen Poe, we all knew he was going to die.  That doesn’t stop the ending from leaving us with disappointment.

There’s a lot to be said for this film.  I was hesitant to watch it at first because I don’t want to be somebody that enjoys the suffering of others.  However, after reading some reviews of it, I decided to give it a shot.  The film is bloody at times, one of the killer’s murders is done by a swinging blade that cuts into his abdomen, and another is by a somewhat graphic slitting of the throat.  The real depth of the film, though, comes at the end.

Poe’s discussion with the killer reveals the murder to be a very disturbed individual.  He is a psychopath, and even considers himself to be an artist.  Poe recognizes that, showing that he at least has enough sanity to realize the difference between his stories and the gruesome executions of his adversary.  It is a very scary reality that he faces.  That shows me that we are dealing with danger when we entertain with violence and bloodshed.  The real message, though, comes with Poe’s sacrifice.

Poe recounts the story of his beloved wife’s death.  He speaks of his love for her and his horror when she became sick and started coughing up blood.  He says that after she died his life was left in ruins.  That is, until he met Emily.  When it came down to it, his love for her was selfless.  He was willing to sacrifice himself in order to save her life.  Amidst a culture that professes love as liking that which makes me feel good, this is a refreshing message.  At the end of  the film, I did not find myself basking in the violence.  Rather, I found myself asking the question: would I have made the sacrifice that Edgar Allen Poe made? 

Canadian Pro-Lifers and Freedom of Speech

Yesterday Linda Gibbons, a Canadian who is a Christian and a staunch pro-lifer, was released from prison after five years.  When I first read about her, I was kind of surprised at her circumstances.  She has been in and out of prison for the last ten years due to her stance on abortion and her zealous activism.  That surprised me.  Although Canada does not have as much freedom of speech as the United States, I still didn’t expect someone to be in prison due to speaking out against abortion.  Then I kept reading.

First of all, it is important to understand the differences between Canada and the United States.  Canada also guarantees freedom of speech but not under the exact same terms.  Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of speech as a “fundamental freedom,” but section 1 of the same document allows the government to pass laws that limit freedom of expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.  As you can see, that “exception” is extremely broad and allows the government a manner of control over their freedom of speech, legitimized by their charter.  One example is that it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada; it is classified as illegal under the term “hate speech.” 

Canada also differs from the United States when it comes to abortion.  There are no legal restrictions on abortion, so it is considered a valid medical route.  That being said, there are activists in Canada that are fighting against it.  Which brings me back to Linda Gibbons. 

When I first read about Linda Gibbons, it sounded as though she was being imprisoned for being an activist.  Naturally, I was very upset.  However, there is more to the story.  The way that she had been protesting abortion is by protesting outside of abortion clinics.  There are some discrepancies on what all was going on, some reports indicate that she was supposedly harassing people, others indicate that she was peacefully protesting.  Her arrests have been on the basis of harassment, and most recently, violation of an injunction which order her not to come within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 

The Canadian publication National Post did an interview with her and her responses sound a lot like what Peter and John said to the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and 5.  Others have suggested that her zeal would be better directed in counseling. 

I appreciate Linda Gibbons’s attitude toward the life of the unborn.  However, I want to ask a serious question.  How much good is she doing?  Some of the most encouraging pro-life campaigns I’ve heard of come in the form of pregnancy centers that give frightened and isolated pregnant women a viable alternative.  Those have done a lot of good.  How much good does protesting outside of abortion clinics do?  Let me ask it another way.  Why didn’t the apostles march straight up to the Jewish leaders and protest against them and demand that they repent?  It wouldn’t have done much good.

We ought never to back down from preaching the truth.  We should, however, think about what our actions show and what the wisest approach to take is.  While there is a respectable and legal way to preach the truth, we ought to take it.  It is not until those options are depleted that we ought to act in rebellion to the law.  Let’s avoid acting in such a way that would give someone an excuse to call us loud, self-righteous bigots and do what God told us through Paul in the letter to the Ephesians: Speak the truth in love.  Always remember Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”

Dressing Up for Church

I admit that I don’t have a real good grasp on who all is reading this blog.  I know that some of you are Christians like I am.  I’m betting that some of you grew up going to church and so you were raised with certain ideas about church.  If that’s the case, I’m about to challenge one of them, and I hope you can take a minute to clear your head and be open-minded about it, because it is not one that people tend to be very understanding of.

My parents are Christians, so I grew up going to church.  Most of the time I dressed up a little bit.  I didn’t always wear a tie, but I didn’t ever wear jeans on Sunday morning.  My father believes that you ought to dress up for church and my mother believed that it wasn’t as important and should be an individual choice, and since I was fortunate enough to grow up in a home where we discussed these kinds of issues, I got to hear both sides of the argument.

Traditionally, it has been expected that when you attend worship service, you dress up.  That starting to change in our culture.  The belief that you ought to dress up for worship services is now being associated only with older Christians, and not the with the younger generation.  This shift is one worth looking into, because my generation has got a lot of things wrong.  There are many people in my generation would rather be entertained than worship God and would rather be comfortable than hear a challenging lesson.  Unfortunately, that has motivated many churches to make their services and their activities more about entertainment because they are afraid of losing the younger generation.  That pushes them farther and farther until many churches now are so unrecognizable, I have little doubt that Jesus would do a few cleansings of churches were He still on the earth.  I don’t want to contribute to the problem.  So I ask the question: should we dress up for church?

Given the fact that so many people older and wiser than me think that you ought to dress up for church, I would think that there is some scriptural basis for it.  Here’s the honest truth: there isn’t.  The only passages I can find on dress one way or the other is like what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:9: “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” 

The point of 1 Timothy 2:9 in context is that women ought not to dress up in order to draw attention to themselves.  When you read 1 Timothy, you get the impression that the Ephesians (Timothy was at Ephesus) had a big problem with pride, and 1 Timothy 2:9 addresses that.  It gives us an interesting concept, though.  If the Bible says anything about how we ought to dress, it tells us not to dress up! 

The argument that I often hear is that it is a matter of respect.  That you dress up for a funeral, so you ought to dress up for God.  This is a fool’s smokescreen.  We all know that our lives as Christians are to be lived 24/7, not just during services.  So if it really is about respect, why don’t we walk around in suits all of the time?  If we really believe that it is a matter of respect, then doesn’t that mean we are living a double standard?  One measure of respect outside of the building and a greater one inside of the building (where everyone can see us)? 

It is not about respect.  It is about cultural acceptance.  It is not culturally acceptable (generally speaking) to come to a funeral in jeans and a hoodie.  It didn’t used to be culturally acceptable to come to church in jeans and a hoodie either.  Where we have erred is in going to the scripture seeking a way to make a cultural thing that we practice binding on other people.  Is this really any different than the Pharisees, who condemned Jesus’s disciples for breaking the traditions of the elders in Matthew 15?  It is no different.

I am not condemning people who dress up.  If you want to, that’s great.  You should do as your conscience dictates.  I will, however, say this: people often equate dressing casually for church with taking it lightly, as though it is just another part of their life.  I see another interpretation.  After all, if we truly can treat worship service as another part of our lives in that we are serving God so much that worshipping God on Sunday is normal for us since we are serving Him all of the time, is that really such a bad thing?

Trees and Chaff

On Sunday night after services I went to a Bible study that was led by a friend of mine.  It was about the analogy in James 1:23-25 comparing the word of God to a mirror.  He concluded by talking about how we always manage to find time for leisure activities and hobbies, but we somehow find ourselves too busy to devote time to the study of God’s word.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading in the psalms this semester.  There’s a few of them that have jumped out at me as having some particularly applicable messages.  One of those is Psalm 1.  Psalm 1 is interesting.  It is a stark contrast of the wicked and the righteous.  The psalmist starts by saying “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.”  I have often noticed the progression of that opening: how sin is progressive.  First you walk and talk with sinners, then you stop to check them out, and before you know it you are sitting among them as one of their own.  There’s more to this psalm though.  If you only know what not to do, righteousness can escape you.  This psalm tells what to do: “but his delight is in the law of Yahweh, and on His law he meditates day and night.” 

We put a lot of focus on not sinning.  We look at the world and the things that people do and we say that we must resist those temptations.  This is very true.  We definitely should.  Unfortunately, though, we often neglect to mention how we should go about doing that.  Ephesians 6:10-18 compares our lives as Christians to warfare.  In listing the armor of God, the only weapon that is offensive is the sword of the spirit – the word of God!  In Matthew 4, Jesus used scripture to combat Satan’s attacks.  Given the fact that Jesus was the only person ever to resist temptation every single time without fail, I think it’s safe to say that his strategy is the one we should employ. 

All of this is pretty easy to agree to.  It’s another thing to implement it.  That’s what you tell yourself, isn’t it?  I’m going to suggest something else.  It’s easy to implement.  We just don’t do it.  How hard is it to not play video games for a half hour so that you can read your Bible?  Not read a book for a half hour?  Not watch Netflix for a half hour?  Not hang out with your boyfriend of girlfriend for a half hour?  Get the picture?  The truth is, it is not that hard to pick up the Bible and read it for a little bit every day.  The problem is we don’t do it. 

Why don’t we do it?  I’m going to venture to say that we are self-focused.  It’s true that many of us are busy people.  I’m not denying that.  But ask yourself this: in all of your busyness, is there at least one television show that you keep up with (if it is on Netflix, it still counts)?  Is there a book series that you are reading right now? 

Let’s think about the way that we use our time.  Because if we’re going to be, as Psalm 1 says “a tree planted by streams of water” and not “chaff which the wind blows away,” we’re going to have to spend time in the word.