The Secular Creed

I have just finished reading The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims written by Rebecca McLaughlin and published by The Gospel Coalition. In this small book, McLaughlin does a masterful job using reason and Scripture to refute five arguments from what some refer to as the secular humanist philosophy. The author handily rebuts the secular argument that belief in the God of the Bible is the cause of much of the corporate injustice and private anguish throughout human history. The secular humanist creed, says McLaughlin, has no basis for what it calls human rights; she correctly locates the foundation for all rights in the God who made everything.

It may be worthwhile to examine the title word, “creed.” This is not a word that is used much today. A dictionary lists as synonyms dogma, doctrine, and belief or faith. People familiar with mainline Protestant churches will recognize the word as many of them still recite the Apostle’s Creed regularly in their services. Many churches which don’t use the historic creed still have statements of faith which are creeds by another name. The church I grew up in treated the idea of a creed with disdain; we were taught to repeat, “No book but the Bible; no creed but Christ.” Of course, this too becomes a credal statement despite the denial.

 To say that a secular humanist has a creed is to point to an important fact: there are fundamental principles that undergird any organized system of thought. This is another way of saying that one’s worldview or philosophy forms the lens through which proponents see the world. As I have written many times, everyone has a worldview whether they know it or not. Many people would be at a loss to recite the main tenets of their governing philosophy, but one exists in spite of their ignorance. Identifying the basic premises behind any argument is essential to forming an opinion as to its validity.

This is what McLaughlin does so well in The Secular Creed. This is a timely book for Christians because we suffer criticism for our beliefs in personal confrontations and in the media almost daily. McLaughlin correctly points out that the “Christianity” we are being maligned for is typically not true Christianity at all. As I wrote in “I Don’t Believe in God,” the god being attacked by most atheists is not the God of the Bible. At the heart of the secular humanist argument is a straw man they have created so that they can destroy the false god they imagine.

In response to the humanists’ attacks through sexism, feminism, racism, and genderism, McLaughlin smashes their argument by establishing the fact that without a proper understanding of the God of the Bible, there would be no basis for human rights of any kind. This approach is not new, having been championed by many 20th century thinkers from C.S. Lewis to Francis Schaeffer. Lacking the moral foundation provided by the Judeo-Christian worldview, all secular philosophies devolve ultimately into nihilism. McLaughlin highlights this by recounting the heinous utilitarianism of Peter Singer and others.

Whereas her biblical defense of human rights is not new, the author’s development of the Scriptural theme of love caught my attention. To correct the secular credo that “Love is Love,” McLaughlin says that properly understood, God is love. She roots the idea of biblical love between persons in the creation order of man and woman entering a marriage relationship. She makes the point that this is an example of loving “the other,” much as loving your neighbor or loving the enemy would be. Male and female were created different yet complementary not only as imagers of the God who created them, but as foreshadows of the bride and groom relationship that would one day characterize Christ and the church.

McLaughlin characterizes same-sex physical relationships as perversions of the imago Dei God intended. Far from condemning same-sex attraction, she commends it as fulfilling the command to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Clearly, however, that kind of agape love does not involve a physical relationship unless you count greeting one another “with a holy kiss.” The author maintains that the “one flesh” aspect instituted in the Garden of Eden is appropriate only within the marriage of a man and a woman. She contends that this unique relationship is supposed to reflect the loving relationship between humans and the one-and-only God who created and redeemed them. God often pictured His relationship with Israel as marital. Paul continues this analogy when he likens a husband’s love for his wife to the love of Christ for the church. Mess with the meaning of marriage, and you are destroying the supreme metaphor representing God’s love for His creation.

I should not have been surprised, then, when McLaughlin asserted that love of spouse is secondary to love of God. Of course, this must be true because the love one human has for another is so easily diluted by personal sinfulness and societal pressures causing it to become something other than the agape love which is required. Human love is too often either eros (physical only) or phileo (affection), and when either of those diminishes, the “loving” relationship can too readily be dismissed. Rightly understood, all human loving relationships must issue from the love of God which, “has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”

There is much more to say about The Secular Creed, but I will leave the remaining arguments McLaughlin throws against the other secular creeds for another time, or you can read them in full by obtaining a free digital copy of her book on The Gospel Coalition website. The thing that impressed me most about McLaughlin’s argument is the way she could legitimately see both sides, often even defend the “other side” for getting it right in contrast to a flawed Christian approach to the issue. If you will pardon a silly metaphor, we need to guard against throwing the banana out with the peel while being careful not to leave the peel where someone might slip on it. So, yes, I’ve gone bananas over this book. (Sorry)

Related posts: Disagree Agreeably; The Importance of Being Right

Creating Chaos

I have an unfortunate habit of creating chaos. By chaos I mean anything that does not follow God’s orderly plan for the universe. As I have written previously, when God created our world, He essentially brought order out of chaos. In Genesis Chapter One the Spirit of God was hovering over something that was empty and without form. When the voice of God thundered in His creative act, order was introduced into the chaos. Even the Hebrew metaphor of evening and morning marking the days echoes this idea. Evening is a time of darkness – a lack of certainty. Morning speaks of the coming of light and clarity. Theologians say God created “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. God spoke into the chaos of dark nothingness and created order.

When God created the first human, He ordered the elements found in the dust of the earth – the water, the minerals, the proteins, the amino acids – and then breathed the miracle of life into His creation. He then gave the first humans the responsibility to rule the Earth as His vice-regents. Name the animals; till the ground; spread the order across the globe. Sadly, Adam and Eve had other plans than to follow God’s direction. They wanted to determine how to order creation in their own way. As the record shows, this resulted in millennia of chaotic existence for the human race.

We all follow in Adam’s footsteps until we are reborn into God’s family by trusting the finished work of Christ on the cross. Even then we still tend toward chaos if we are not careful. There are three ways that I see this happening in my life. First, I sin, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes willfully. We all do, of course. John says if we say we don’t sin, we are liars. The good news John also reports is that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us. We also have the blessed hope that when Heaven and Earth become one again, God’s perfect order will be restored – no more sin.

The second way I create chaos is more subtle. I worry. This too may be sin if my worry stems from lack of faith. However, I believe that sometimes my worry is due to a character flaw that isn’t necessarily a transgression of God’s perfect order. It’s just a consequence of my humanity that has not yet been completely sanctified. Like so many others, what I do, as someone put it, is borrow trouble from tomorrow. I am an incorrigible what-iffer. What if it rains on the day of our picnic? What if inflation outpaces my income? What if I have misunderstood God’s will for my life? And so on endlessly. This creates unease and diminishes peace and disrupts the order God intends for me to live in. I still struggle to accept Paul’s blessed comfort: to be content in whatever state I am.

There is a third way I create chaos that I have come to believe is not sin at all, but rather it fulfills God’s purpose: I offend people. As I wrote recently in “When Being Right is Wrong,” I cannot help but offend some people because the proclamation of the truth will offend. My Lord is the Chief Corner Stone, but He is also the Stone of Stumbling, the Rock of Offense. This feature of Christ’s existence is not popular. Our politically correct society demands the removal of all offense. A believer who wants to be true to God’s will cannot comply. Outspoken Christians will find themselves thrown to the lions, just as Daniel was when he refused to bow to the king’s image. This chaos, this clash of kingdoms will continue until Christ returns to vindicate and rescue His bride.

There can be a positive result of this form of chaos for the believer. The Psalmist said, “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I could learn your statutes.” This is the fruit of the contemplation mentioned earlier in the Psalm: “Though princes sit together speaking against me, your servant will think about your statutes; your decrees are my delight and my counselors.” When we know what is right, we have a duty to share it. If we are standing on the truth, we have to say with Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

It sounds like an oxymoron, but chaos is a major part of God’s perfect order: orderly chaos? Perhaps I should say it's part of God’s plan to restore order. The Heavenly Father disciplines those He loves – creates chaos in their lives – for the purpose of perfecting them. Jesus promised His disciples that some of their enemies would come from their own households. He also said, not necessarily as hyperbole, that He came not to bring peace but a sword. The night before the most chaotic day in history, the Master comforted His followers with this: “In the world you will have [chaos] but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Unity is a feature of the order God expects the church to show the world. Jesus prayed for it on the night He was betrayed. Paul encouraged it throughout his epistles. King David longed for it, though he new better than most that it was elusive. He wrote, “Look, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity.” Unity, like all graces, will not be complete until we are all glorified. While we wait for that blessed day, we should be, “eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

I note that Paul said it would be unity of the Spirit; this leaves open the possibility that we may not have unity of mind or affection. It gives tacit approval to differences of opinion and friction between different personality types, perhaps even denominational distinctions. What we cannot do is create chaos in the church over non-essential matters. Agreeing to disagree, accepting differences, unity not uniformity – that is what Jesus prayed for.

But still, I create chaos. I embrace chaos, not when it represents sin in my life, but when it signals the Kingdom of Light piercing the darkness. The Message puts it like this: “God rescued us from dead-end alleys and dark dungeons. He’s set us up in the kingdom of the Son he loves so much, the Son who got us out of the pit we were in, got rid of the sins we were doomed to keep repeating.” Jesus rescued me from the chaos and placed me in His marvelous light. It’s my job to share that light even if it creates chaos.

Related posts: The Knowledge of Good and Evil; The Importance of Being Right; Bringing the Kingdom

Farewell Roe v. Wade

Child at 13 weeks

After nearly fifty years, and millions of murdered children, and countless attempts by pro-life organizations, Roe v. Wade has finally been overturned. This does not mean that abortion is suddenly illegal. What it means is that the individual states must now craft their own abortion laws. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito said, "‘We hold, [that] the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.’ Justice Alito also said any state regulation of abortion is presumptively valid and, ‘must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought’ it was serving ‘legitimate state interests,’ including ‘respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.’”

This is good news and bad news. The ruling does remove the wrongheaded assumption that the Constitutional right to privacy includes the right to murder unborn children. That’s good news. The bad news is that there will undoubtedly be states that find “a rational basis” for abortion that serves “legitimate state interests.” Convenience will still trump the sanctity of life in some people’s mind. If a state decides that it would be rational to end a pregnancy through abortion to preclude the possibility of having to pay for an unwanted child, legitimate state interests could be claimed.

What the overturn of Roe v. Wade did not do is clear up the underlying question of when human rights begin to apply to a fetus, the question being whether an unborn baby is truly human. As a Christian, there can be no question because the Bible repeatedly asserts that the life of every human being exists in God’s mind even before conception. Psalm 139 states this most clearly:

“Indeed you created my inward parts;

you wove me in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully

and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works,

and my soul knows it well.

My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was created secretly,

and intricately woven

in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my embryo,

and in your book, they all were written—

days fashioned for me when there was not one of them.”

Even if we didn’t have the Bible to rely on, there is good, logical reason to believe human life begins at conception. The DNA in the sperm and egg are human DNA. The entity that issues from the fertilized egg can be nothing but human. There is no question there. Ignoring this, the courts have struggled for the last fifty years to decide whether there is a point of viability at which a fertilized egg becomes human. Viability is taken to mean the ability to exist outside the womb which is really a question of where a thing exists not what it is essentially.

One must ask how human-ness can be defined if DNA is ignored. Some believers wanting to preserve abortion rights have suggested that the unborn baby doesn’t become human until it takes a breath. They make the claim that Adam didn’t become human until God breathed the “breath of life” into him. That may have been the case for Adam, but there is no biblical evidence that God breathes life into every individual child that has been born since Adam. Rather, the method of procreation instituted by God at creation continues the miracle of life through natural means.

When developing in the womb, the unborn baby gets its life-giving oxygen from its mother’s blood. Once the baby’s umbilical cord is severed, the baby’s lungs take over the function of providing oxygen. This simple change in the source of oxygen does not signal a transition from not-human to human. A baby does not change physically when it takes its first breath. It is also true that every creature that exists on land breathes air; every creature is not therefore human. The breath of life argument doesn’t hold up.

Another argument for assigning human-ness at the point of conception might be called an argument from potentiality. A kernel of corn placed in the ground becomes a stalk of corn. A planted acorn becomes an oak tree. A fertilized chicken egg becomes a chicken. A fertilized cow ovum becomes a cow. Corn doesn’t produce oak trees; chicken eggs don’t hatch cows. A fertilized human egg cannot become anything but a human. The real argument today is whether all humans, including the unborn, have equal rights under the law.

Bioethicists are beginning to argue that despite the presence of human-ness, some classes of persons might justifiably be denied human rights. Unwanted or premature babies, mentally deficient children and adults, people debilitated by the process of aging can all be considered less than human and not deserving the rights granted to “fully human” beings. This is a very dangerous line to follow, but it has credibility among those people who are utilitarian or pragmatic in their philosophies. It can also be used in the “legitimate state interest” argument: a person who cannot contribute to society in any meaningful way should not be granted full human rights and become a burden to the state. Terminating those humans would be a benefit to the non-terminated humans. Unwanted pregnancies can be terminated for the good of society, so they say.

As of 2019 (the latest year with statistics since Roe v. Wade in 1973) there have been 63,459,781 aborted fetuses in the United States. Over 63 million human beings have been thrown in the trash. That is a national tragedy that underscores the shift in this country away from Judeo-Christian principles. Many state legislatures will find their own way to provide abortion rights similar to Roe v. Wade. As I have written previously, the decoupling of procreation from sex with the easy availability of birth control hastened the rise of promiscuity and placed the institution of marriage in second place behind physical gratification. The push to redefine gender and marriage further weakened the biblical institution.

We have good reason to celebrate the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Christians should not abandon the battle for the sanctity of life, however. The front lines have now been moved to the state legislatures making it more difficult in some ways. Instead of a single pro-life march on Washington, we will now need to approach lawmakers in every state that tries to reinstate abortion à la Roe v. Wade.  This is just one front in the culture war Christians should be engaged in. Although our true enemy is “spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies,” our enemy on the ground is apathy. Christians are no longer the majority in many areas. However, if we voted as a bloc, we could have significant influence on policy especially at the local level.

Say a prayer of thanks that the devouring lion of Roe v. Wade has been defanged. Stay on your knees, however, and continue praying that the one “looking for someone to devour” will be held back in other critical areas. Then get off your knees and do something. Saint Augustine is supposed to have said, “Pray like it all depends on God and work like it all depends on you.” That’s great advice.

Related posts: Whose War on Women?

When Being Right is Wrong

What I am about to write is autobiographical and confessional in nature. This is not the kind of thing I would normally publish broadly but more likely speak in confidence to close friends. I have chosen to make myself vulnerable because I have caused trouble in a public way, and I don’t know who I might need to apologize to beyond those who have spoken up. This exposure may also be helpful to someone who has had similar difficulties and could learn from my experience.

If you have not read my blog for long, you may want to read the following articles for background: OMG! It’s Me; Confidence Versus Arrogance; The Importance of Being Right. If you don’t have time to read them, I will simply say that they prove the issue at hand is not something new to me. It would seem to be almost as old as I am; I remember my mother telling me to watch my tone of voice after I had said something that she took as disrespectful. I hadn’t meant to be disrespectful, but apparently it sounded like I was. The fact that I can remember her exact words tells me that it was not a one-time occurrence. My wife has said the same thing to me as recently as last week, so the problem continues.

I remember having lunch with my pastor about thirty years ago discussing an issue with a fellow-believer at the church. I had not thought there was anything to be upset about, but an upset occurred. My pastor told me something that shocked me; he said that I intimidate people. To this day, my self-image is tender enough that I struggle to believe I have the kind of character that would intimidate anyone, but I still do. Any protestations of humility or deference are discounted as more of my raw hubris.

As a composition teacher, I always taught that your words cease to be yours once they are sent out and received by another. The receiver creates a perception of what your words mean, and that perception is reality to that person. Period. No amount of backpedaling or apology seems to change the mind of a person who is convinced he knows your intentions. Even after fifty years of marriage, my wife still occasionally assigns dark motives to me of which I am entirely innocent. It should come as no surprise that people who don’t know me well should do the same.

What am I to do? I suppose I could just shut my mouth, park my word processor, and never produce another word. Like that will ever happen! My problem is compounded by the fact that I am called and gifted as a teacher, a fact attested to by the Holy Spirit witness to my own spirit and the confirmation of the Body of Christ over many years. Because it would be a sin not to share my gift, shutting up is not an option. It’s all about when to speak and what to say. I have been accused of “teaching” people who were not interested. I thought my lesson was needed, but the “student” was not ready to hear it. Then there is the case of saying something that might be appropriate but coloring it with my tonal affliction and messing up the moment.

Regardless of tone or timing, my strongly held opinions intimidate those who hold opposing views, as was noted by my pastor years ago. This is where the question of arrogance versus confidence applies. If I am confident by reason of my study and the Spirit’s witness that a Scriptural principle can be applied to a situation, I need to take one more step and ask if the application and venue are appropriate. The fact that I may offend someone is not reason enough to keep silent. If that were the case, none of the biblical prophets would have said a word; they were always offending someone, as was Jesus Himself. My detractors might say that I am not Jesus or a prophet, so I should shut up. My apologies to them all, but my Editor is of a higher order.

During the 2020 election season, I frequently made my opinions known through blogs and responses on Facebook. I did not check with my Editor often enough. I paid the price in bruised and broken relationships. I seldom respond on Facebook anymore unless the offender is maligning God or His Word. I feel like David when he stood in front of Goliath and said, “You can’t talk about my God like that!” If God’s Word offends people, and I suffer the consequences, I am getting what Jesus promised: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” He is after all, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”

Another man I once admired said that if you are getting shot at from both sides, you are probably in the right place. That was certainly the case with Jesus. I often find myself in that position; I’m too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. In any case, I am too outspoken for the intimidated. Confidence or arrogance; faith or foolishness. Going forward, I am going to make the effort to say only what needs to be said and to say it with no malice of tone (as best I can). If you are one of the offended, please accept my apology and know that I bear malice toward no one, but I am resigned to the fact that some people will take offense no matter what I say. Thanks for listening.

Encounters With Eliphaz

Encounters With Eliphaz

In the last chapter of the book of Job, God chides Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends because, “you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” You may recall that the friends insisted that Job’s suffering was a result of his own sin. Job maintained throughout that he had lived righteously, and the judgment he was receiving from God was undeserved. As I have written previously, God corrected Job by asserting His sovereign right to do with His creation as He wished, without regard to their comfort. After Job’s friends finish their misguided advice, God expresses His anger at them for not speaking the truth.

God’s reprimand clearly confirms the message of the book by establishing Job’s innocence and God’s right as sovereign. What strikes me with His word to Eliphaz and company is that He expected them to know His truth. We don’t know for sure, but most Bible scholars think Job lived around the time of Abraham – during the patriarchal age – before any written scripture we know of. This is not the only instance of God expecting men to know His will. Cain was chided for not knowing how to properly approach God; then he killed his brother in a rage. Enoch obviously did what God wanted and was rewarded with a free trip to Heaven without dying first. Noah listened to God and built the ark according to God’s design. Abraham took off for parts unknown on the word of a God he obviously trusted.

Then we come to Job. God affirmed Job’s opinion and condemned the friends for expressing false opinions. Jesus had similar encounters with the religious leaders of His day; they should have recognized who He was, but they did not because as Jesus said, “You search the scriptures because you think that you have eternal life in them, and it is these that testify about me. And you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.” As is usually the case, ignorance is no excuse. Even though they had no written Scriptures we know of, Job’s friends were chastened by God for not speaking truthfully.

One has to wonder what God must be thinking about His people today. We have His Word in almost every known language, and many homes in this country have several copies, yet there is an alarming lack of Bible knowledge even among Christians. (See Merely Christian) Even worse, we have some people claiming to follow the Bible, but like the Jews of Jesus’ day, make their converts, “twice as much the son of hell as you are.” You don’t have to go to some crazy cult to find teachers who twist the Scripture to fit their own ideas of who God is and what He wants. Churches that used to be bastions of biblical integrity are now condoning all manner of unbiblical practices.

The worst part of all this is that when someone stands up for traditional biblical interpretation, he is likely to be mocked as a simpleton or shouted down as a politically incorrect hater. We shouldn’t be surprised. Jesus was mocked and killed as were many of the prophets before Him, and many of His true followers were martyred by the very church that should have welcomed them. When Martin Luther tried to correct the Roman church after he discovered the true meaning of salvation by grace through faith, he ran afoul of the leadership. When he was called to testify before church leaders, a friend warned him of the potential danger. Luther responded, “This is no time to think of safety. I must take care that the gospel is not brought into contempt by our fear to confess and seal our teaching with our blood.”

The true gospel is being brought into contempt these days. No one in this country has been asked to seal their teaching with their blood yet, but preachers have been jailed for sharing a traditional interpretation of the biblical position on homosexuality. Parents can be brought up on charges for using corporal punishment in a biblically sound manner. Merchants can be fined for standing on principle and refusing to support causes they find unbiblical. Teens can get birth control or gender altering drugs without parental approval. Elementary schools are indoctrinating students with the tenets of critical race theory that clearly trample the rights of Christian parents to educate their children as they see fit.

I would dearly love to hear God thunder the way He did to Eliphaz. I sometimes feel like the Psalmist who complains, “Why do the wicked prosper?” I long for the retribution promised the unrighteous: “Let them be shamed and abashed altogether who seek to take away my life. Let them be repulsed and humiliated who desire my harm.” We need to take Paul’s advice and put on the full armor of God. There’s an Eliphaz around every corner these days, and it may be up to us to put him in his place. Pray you are prepared.

Related posts: Paging Phineas Eleazer;  Make Me Be Good; The Importance of Being Right; Not Our Fathers’ God; I Don’t Believe in God

What About Men’s Attire?

I received a thoughtful reply to my last blog post, How to Watch TV (part 4). In that post I suggested that popular television programs are influencing our decisions about what is acceptable women’s attire. My reader suggested, based on her teen-aged daughter’s experience, that I might consider writing about men’s attire as well. Her implication was that girls will be just as easily tempted as boys by alluring attire on the opposite sex. Because my reader is of a younger generation than I, I suspect she may be experiencing a societal shift that is worth exploring.

A quick Google search retrieved thousands of mentions of shifting trends in female arousal and expectations regarding sexual relationships. Not all the “research” uses solid scientific methodology, but there is enough data to suggest that something is changing. I am less interested in the measurement of the change than the motivation for the change. I have to wonder if the dramatic sexualization of our society is socializing modern girls differently than previous generations. I know the teen sitcoms my daughter was fascinated with in the 1980’s made it seem as though boys were the main topic of interest to girls her age. My reading of history makes me think that was not always the case.

One reason to think that young girls in ages past didn’t spend much time fantasizing about boys is that they were usually married soon after puberty. As I have written previously, the freedom experienced by our teen-aged society is a recent phenomenon. It was not until the middle of the last century that young people had many years of freedom to explore their sexuality before getting married. While men in western culture were expected to get established in a career before marrying, when they did choose a bride at twenty- or thirty-something, she was likely to be between 14-16 years old. Upper class men, because of a more certain source of income often married younger to women closer to their own age.

We are barely three generations into a period when men and women are expected to finish high school and then learn a trade or go to college before thinking about marriage. This puts pressure on both men and women to find release for the sexual tension that is a normal, God-given condition. Society began telling teens consistently since the free-love Sixties that sex is just part of nature, so they should do what comes naturally. I have said before that I agree completely with Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that the decoupling of sex from procreation in the 1960’s was a watershed moment in human history. If sex doesn’t have to make babies, then women are freed from one of the strongest reasons to wait until a man makes a life-long commitment to her and the child. Sex can be experienced risk-free just for fun. Whoopee!

If sex is just about satisfying animal urges, and if the risk of pregnancy is removed either through birth control or abortion, and finally, if young women are going to spend years in post-pubescent longing, it does seem likely that their traditional, historical attitudes might change. This condition would also explain a shift from the traditional idea that only men were interested in casual sex without commitment. If you can believe Hollywood, women are just as likely to be promiscuous as men. Or put another way, just as likely to initiate the fall into sin.

It might be argued that for all of human history until the twentieth century, virtually all societies have been patriarchal. Men ran things, so men wrote the rules and the history from a decidedly male viewpoint. The Bible certainly reflects that situation, and although the New Testament does establish male headship in families as the Godly norm, Paul in particular makes it clear that in Christ, there are no gender inequalities. None of this precludes the real possibility that young women today might be exhibiting different attitudes toward sex than they had in the past. This situation also parallels the so-called feminization of males. As society is stridently insisting that there is no difference between the sexes, men are sliding into more traditionally feminine behaviors and attitudes while women are becoming more masculine.

I firmly believe that this situation is a clever plot by the enemy of our souls to disrupt the divine order God intended in the beginning. By blurring the lines between genders and even encouraging gender transitions, our enemy has tempted us to think in ways that do not reflect God’s perfect order for society. Family values based on Scriptural principles which were once almost universal in human society are now regarded as old fashioned and unnecessary.

While this may seem purely academic and unimportant to average Christians, it is anything but that. The family structure ordained by God in the Garden of Eden – man, woman, child – is elemental to human existence as creatures made in God’s image. God saw that Adam was not complete alone, so He completed him with Eve. This is emphasized by the declaration that a man and a woman become “one flesh” in marriage. The natural result of the “one flesh” union is children. Without this resulting completion, the human race would eventually cease to exist. “Be fruitful and multiply” was not an optional suggestion; it was mandatory.

The Apostle Paul adds emphasis to the uniqueness of male-female unions in 1 Corinthians 6. He warns the licentious believers that uniting with a prostitute (extra-marital sex) has spiritual implications affecting their relationship with Jesus Christ. This sin, he says, is like no other. I believe he makes this assertion because of the elemental nature of male-female bonding instituted in Genesis. It also distorts the purity of the male/female image bearing quality instituted at creation.

I realize that I have strayed far from the original question of men’s attire. I arrived here because the question of sexual temptation goes both ways. The way Christians present themselves in society, whether male or female, must maintain a standard that is supportive of God’s design. As I wrote at length in “Women’s Attire,” Paul’s instructions to Timothy encouraged “modesty” in women’s attire; the word might well be translated “orderliness.” Societal order is precisely what gets tossed aside when women or men behave in ways that causes temptation. Chaos is what happens when order is ignored. Chaos in God’s system of things is otherwise known as sin.

I will defer to the young mother who suggested men’s attire should be a subject of concern. She may be right that women are just as likely to be tempted by visual stimulation as men. The principle that is most important here (the WHAMM) is that parents must tell their children that society has completely fallen for the enemy’s scheme, and contrary to what they may see or hear, the proper place for sexual expression is always and only in marriage between a man and a woman. Parents might also try to limit their children’s exposure to societal pressure by censoring their media indulgence and providing wholesome, God-honoring means of entertainment.

There I go sounding like an old fuddy-duddy again. Measured by today’s standards, I may even sound like a fool to suggest such things. Then I remember what Paul said about being a fool in the eyes of the world for Christ's sake. I’ll take that.

How to Watch TV (Part 4)

I wrote a series of articles almost ten years ago recommending that believers reconsider their television viewing habits in light of biblical principles. (See below) More recently, I wrote again about the negative influence of Woke TV on Christian thinking. My attendance at my granddaughter’s graduation awards ceremony has brought me back to consideration of the moral condition of our society and television’s role in its formation. I used to spend most of my waking hours in the presence of teens and twenty-somethings as a teacher. I have been retired for several years, so some things surprised me when I revisited that world.

I am referring to teen girls’ fashion trends. Many of the young ladies were dressed in outfits that I never would have allowed my daughters to wear in any situation, least of all where they were required to prance across a stage in front of an audience. One example of the “little black dress” that every cosmopolitan thing must have was skin tight, barely long enough to cover her buttocks, and it stretched low enough below her clavicles to be somewhat suggestive. On a high school coed. At a graduation ceremony. I could only wonder what her parents were thinking when they allowed her out of the house. That dress looked exactly like something a “working girl” would wear on the street corner during business hours.

I have written at length about proper attire for Christian women (see below), so I will not belabor the facts here. My purpose in this installment is to question how or why we have allowed ourselves to sink to such a deplorable condition. The graduation ceremony I attended was at a school in a predominantly Christian, conservative part of our country. I suspect that the families represented had a higher percentage of church attendance than the average US population. This was not LA or Miami. If you think I am being too puritan or provincial, please read the articles linked below: Christian Cleavage and Women’s Attire. It is true that I am old, but my opinions are based on the old Book we are supposed to be using to inform our behavior.

It is my opinion that the state of our over-sexualized society can be directly attributed to the nature of the television programs we watch. I know that sexual sin can be traced all the way back to the earliest pages of the Scriptural record long before the airwaves were polluted by smut. I know that promiscuity and adultery are not new to the body of Christ. I know that I cannot expect biblical morals from non-believers, so their behavior shouldn’t surprise me.

The thing that seems different to me is the expectation and expression of sexuality prevalent among those whom I would consider conservative. I don’t watch much TV drama because it disgusts me. What little I have seen makes me wonder if real people are as promiscuous as those portrayed on the typical television program. Do real people crash into their apartment or a hospital linen closet ripping their clothes off and doing what they do standing against a wall? Perhaps my limited experience with today’s TV drama is missing the married version of conjugal bliss that speaks of love and tenderness. But when I think about it, I can’t recall a single episode depicting a married couple in the bedroom. Hmm.

I am pretty sure that the human brain is wired in such a way that if it records something happening in a morally neutral setting with no negative consequences time after time, it will eventually accept that action or condition as normal. I shudder to think that the sexual mores of people portrayed on television are normal. I recently read an article by A. W. Tozer in which he suggested that Christian behavior must not be judged by the standard “not as bad as,” but instead we should be measuring our behavior against a biblical standard. Using that standard, I wonder if we should be watching any TV drama at all. Certainly, no Christian mother should allow her daughter to appear in public dressed like a prostitute. Ever.

But they are. As I said in my previous articles, hours and hours of bathing in the sewer that is commercial television have numbed us to the searing debauchery which invades our homes electronically every night. I recommended ten years ago that if we didn’t just unplug the box, we should at least be very careful about what and how we watch it. I am even more convinced now that that is true.

There is only one reason a television drama is able to be produced: advertising revenue. What I am about to suggest is going to sound naïve or ridiculous to many. I will say it anyway. If enough offended religious viewers let the sponsors of raunchy programs know that they were offended by the depiction of immorality, the sponsors would reconsider their involvement. Because of the apathy of most American Christians, I am just cynical enough to expect that that will happen right after pigs fly over Hollywood and Vine.

I close with the words of Paul: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. This is why it is said:

‘Wake up, sleeper,

    rise from the dead,

    and Christ will shine on you.’

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.”

Consider the Lord’s will regarding your TV viewing and how it affects your behavior. As I said several years ago, you don’t have to go as far as the Amish to make a biblical statement to a sinful world. At the very least we should prevent our daughters from looking like they are soliciting. My experience the other night makes me think we have graduated to something akin to Sodom and Gomorrah. And we know what happened to them.

Related Posts: Woke TV; How to Watch Television (1); How to Watch Television (2); How to Watch Television (3); Debating Christian Cleavage; Women’s Attire Again