Special Issue
_______________________Morals Under Fire____________________
It is not uncommon to hear statements of disdain directed toward those who "sit in ivory towers." Yetfrom those ivory towers small pebbles have startedripples which have culminated in social tidal waves.
The unrest we have witnessed in world events may be traced largely to the "ivory towers" of Hegel and Marx. Turmoil on many fronts found impetus in theserenity of Charles Darwin's "ivory tower." What is happening in government, education, religion, andthe world in general, had filtered down to the massesfrom the ivory towers of philosophy.
"Existentialism" does not lend itself to a concise definition. One begins to feel the drift of this philosophy (more properly, a non-philosophy) only ashe reads the novels, plays, short stories, etc., of its proponents.
Nevertheless, let us offer a couple of definitions thatmay be useful. The Dictionary of Religious Terms byDonald T. Kauffman defines it as an approach which "emphasizes one's individual subjective experience and grasp of existence." Hugh J. O'Connell, a Catholic theologian, gives this definition: "A mental approach, a way of thinking, which studies every problem from the viewpoint of the individualhuman person."
Francis A. Schaeffer defines it as: "A modern theory of man that holds that human experience isnot describable in scientific or rational terms. Existentialism stresses the need to make vital choices by using man's freedom in a contingent and apparently purposeless world."
Some existentialists, like Jean Paul Sarte and Albert Camus, are atheists. Heidegger is an agnostic.Others, such as Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Reinhold Niebuhr, are theists.
Two General Views
A study of the history of philosophy demonstratestwo general views of the world. One mental approachis called realism. This philosophy affirms the reality of the world outside man. It stresses the objective and asserts that the world is real, consisting of realthings, and we can study and know this outsideworld with our senses.
The other approach is idealism. It is concerned with what goes on inside the mind of man. Subjectivism is emphasized. Man's feelings, emotions, thoughts, and sensations, stand foremost with the idealist.
Idealism has held sway in philosophy since the time of Rene' Descartes (1596-1650) and ImmanuelKant (1724-1804). Although these did not rejectmoral law and objective truth, philosophers who havefollowed their influence have done so. The result has been a rejection of any standard of absolute truth. Ifall is subjective, then all is relative. What is right inone case may be wrong in another.
Irrational Philosophy Manifested
The dominant philosophy of a society is reflected inits art. The great artists of the Renaissance were realists. They believed their models were real andthey copied them as closely as possible. Michelangelobecame a student of all nature that he might morefaithfully capture reality in his work.
Modern art is idealistic, reflecting the modern philosophy that all reality is subjective. Picasso, Mondrian, and Duchamp have not painted the realistic world we see. They paint their own feelings,sensations, and emotions.
Pablo Picasso, the famous surrealist artist, was quoted in the French magazine Le Spectacle du Monde (Nov. 1962) to the effect that while young hewas enamored of the religion of great art, but "from cubism on," he had satisfied the public with the "many bizarre notions which have come into my head." He added, "The less they (the public)understood, the more they admired them. . . Today,as you know, I am famous and very rich. But whenI am alone with myself, I haven't the courage toconsider myself an artist, in the great and ancientsense of that word. . . I am only a public entertainer,who understands his age."
The same thought forms are reflected in literatureand other mediums of entertainment. Samuel Richardson, Dickens, Thackeray, and Twain wrotebooks and stories that made sense. Their works had plots, characters you could identify with, and theycame to some ending, satisfactory or not. Movies and plays, a few years ago, were also realistic.
Now it is not uncommon to read a story, or see atelevision drama which has no plot whatever. Characters as well are often unreal. There is no ending. The conclusion leaves you wondering what happened. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. is representative of such writers. The back cover of "Mother Night" says: "In Mother Night Vonnegut makes fun of sex, sin, and motherhood; of war and peace, of the FBI and Communists; and the Nazis, too. . .it couldonly happen in the Silly Putty world of Mother Night where the only reality is unreality."
Vonnegut ends his novel, Cat's Cradle with the words: "If I were a younger man, I would write ahistory of human stupidity; and I would climb to thetop of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back withmy history for a pillow; and I would take from theground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself,lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who."
Modern music also reflects irrationality. The reasona lot that is called music sounds like noise is because it is noise. Such is not only true of much rock musicand modern jazz, but classical music as well.
Francis Schaeffer speaks of Composer John Cagewho began to compose his music through the tossing of coins. The result is "noise and confusion or total silence." In The New Yorker of Nov. 28, 1964, a Profile of John Cage appeared. The article says thatCage has followed in the tradition of such painters asthe late Jackson Pollock in America and GeorgesMathieu in France who "sought in the accidents of throwing or dripping paint a key to creation beyond the reach of the artist's conscious mind and will." In the realm of music, "Cage proposes an art, born ofchance and indeterminacy." (As quoted by Schaeffer, The God Who is There, P. 72,73.)
As one might expect, existentialism has filtered down to the world of theology as well. The best known names in modern theology, Tillich, Barth, Bultmann, Buber, Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer, etc., are existentialists.
The logical end of "Christian existentialism" is "Christian atheism." This contradiction of terms we have witnessed in the "God is dead" theologians.Situation ethics is another necessary conclusion of thenew theology, and this has been espoused by BishopRobinson (Honest to God) and Joseph Fletcher, and says Schaeffer, "is simply that a man must live inreality, and reality consists of two parts: the externalworld and its form, and man's 'mannishness',
including his own 'mannishness'."
According to William Barrett, man must choose inthe face of absurdity to either "lead an enthusiasticand honorable existence" or lapse into despair. Thesealternatives are seen in two general groups of existentialists. The "hippy" type has lapsed intodespair. He is interested only in "free love", drugs,and any other escape that presents itself. The "active" type opts for "courageous despair." He acknowledges the meaninglessness of existence,nevertheless he chooses to act as if there were some meaning.
But if all is chaos, why make a choice? The veryeffort is a contradiction to the presupposition. Duncan Williams writes: "Secular activists resemble players in a football game in which there are no rules,no referee, no time-limit and no spectators; for a time a certain physical exuberance will keep the participants occupied, but as their energy becomessapped, so the purposelessness of the whole game willpermeate their consciousness and one by one they willretire, leaving only the totally unintelligent andinsensitive to continue the endless race.
". . .when faced with a cosmic inanity which reduces man to an 'impossible nullity', why attemptto reduce such chaos to a system? Why not lie backand scream or indulge in any other maniacal actwhich has presumably as much or as little significance as philosophical speculation or any otherrational activity? Why write plays or short stories?Why not abandon oneself to suicide or an avowed,conscious hedonism? To attempt anything else whileholding such views is simply compounding absurdity.. ." (Trousered Apes, p. 64,65).
The Christian recognizes the truth of both realismand idealism. There is a real world with laws and consequences for violating those laws. There is also asubjective realm which is based on the mind's impressions of the external world. These cannot beseparated. They must be harmonized. Our eyes look out, not in. Our ears are designed to hear soundsfrom without the mind. Our hands reach out, and ourlegs carry us from one place to another in the external world.
Science bears the marks of its Christian origin.Only where there is a belief that the world is rationaland orderly can science grow and survive. It is foolish to seek order when one is sure there is onlychaos and irrationality.
God has revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus. He has revealed His will in an objective way. Weare told to read and know (Eph. 3:3-5).
One young man told me, "I think you churchmembers are just looking for the big jump."
"Yes," I replied, "but what you call 'the big jump', is not an experience that only Christians areseeking. It's a basic desire of all mankind. In our discussion of the different shades of existentialism,we have made free use of the phrase 'upper story experience.' What is this but a desire for 'the big
jump'?"
"That's something to think about," he agreed.
Revelation describes the big jump in this manner:"For I consider that the sufferings of this presenttime are not worthy to be compared with the glorythat is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longingof the creature waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected tofutility, not of its own will, but because of Him whosubjected it, in hope that the creation itself also willbe set free from its slavery to corruption into thefreedom of the glory of the children of God. For weknow that the whole creation groans and suffers thepains of childbirth together until now"(Romans 8:1822 NASB).
One other thing I mentioned to my young friend.You have to get a foothold on something if you wantto jump. Modern secular thought offers no ground fora foothold. The Christian has a foundation from which to hope and jump. He has a God who has revealed Himself and who gives assurance to thosewho will hear His voice.
GOD'S MORAL STANDARD
When Jesus stood before the Roman governor, Pilate, he said "I came to bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth myvoice." Pilate then framed the question which cynics,relativists and situationists have always raised,perhaps with the same degree of scorn, when heasked "What is truth" (John 18:37-38)? In commonwith those of like doubt today, Pilate turned awaywithout waiting for an answer. Indeed, many are convinced that there is no definitive standard bywhich truth can be ascertained and measured. It is our settled conviction that truth can be discovered and that all of life's choices can be measured by revealed truth.
What Is Truth?
John wrote that "the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. . ." and that he was "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). In verse 17 he said "For thelaw came by Moses, but grace and truth came byJesus Christ." Jesus said "I am the way, the truth,and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but byme" (John 14:6). Jesus was the revelation of Divinityto humanity. Since it is impossible for God to lie(Heb. 6:18) and since Jesus Christ possessed all thequalities of Deity while dwelling in the flesh, then nofalsehood was to be found in him. All that he taughtwas truth. His actions were truth in motion. Peter said he left an example "that ye should follow hissteps" (1 Peter 2:21). When Jesus told Pilate "everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice" hethereby made himself the standard by which truth ismeasured.
Jesus promised his apostles that when he wentback to heaven, he would not leave them comfortlessbut would send "the Spirit of truth" to guide theminto "all truth" (John 16:13). As Jesus prayed for theapostles he said "Sanctify them through thy truth:thy word is truth" (John 17:20). The great work ofthe Holy Spirit was to reveal "all truth." That doesnot leave out anything necessary to the spiritual andmoral direction of humanity. When the Galatians turned aside to a perverted gospel Paul said they did not "obey the truth" (Gal. 3:1). Truth is what Jesus taught by word and example and what the HolySpirit revealed to the apostles. That revelation was written and addressed to human understanding,intended to result in obedience of life (Eph. 3:3-4).
The Divine "Ought"
Paul wrote to Timothy to instruct him as to howhe "ought" to conduct himself as a part of God's household (1 Timothy 3:15). The word "ought"suggests a moral imperative. It is what must be doneif God is to be pleased.
The New Testament abounds with instructions designed to make the Christian aware of what Godexpects of him in the moral realm. We are challenged to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy,acceptable unto God" and to "be not conformed to thisworld: but be ye transformed by the renewing of yourmind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2).The works of the flesh are listed in Galatians 5:19-21 including sins involving sexuality, rejection of God,disposition, and closing with "murders, drunkenness,revellings, and such like." These things ought not tobe practiced for it is stated that "they which do suchthings shall not inherit the kingdom of God." JosephFletcher and other advocates of situationism tell us that there are no fixed rules ahead of time and the act of fornication, and sometimes even murder, maybe ethically right, depending on the situation. God's word, the standard of truth, says otherwise.
The Gentile world without the gospel was given over to lasciviousness because it was "past feeling"and had allowed its heart to be blinded. Then Paul said "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be thatye heard him, and have been taught by him, as thetruth is in Jesus, That ye put off concerning theformer conversation the old man, which is corruptaccording to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed inthe spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the newman, which after God is created in righteousness andtrue holiness" (Eph. 4:17-24).
There are some things we ought to do and some weought not to do.
The Completeness of God's Standard
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, andis profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction:That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Notice that the scriptures are intended for "instruction in righteousness" and that we are completely equipped thereby. Peter said "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledgeof him that hath called us to glory and virtue" (2 Peter 1:3). When theologians abandoned the inspired scriptures as the norm by which religiousissues are to be settled, they also destroyed faithin what the scriptures say on moral issues.
The Standard of Judgment
Not only did God give us in scripture a perfectguide but we are told as well that we shall be calledto judgment by that very standard. Jesus said "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hathone that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,the same shall judge him in the last day" (John12:48). "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the thingsdone in his body, according to that he hath done,whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:10). One of themost sobering passages in all the Bible is found in Revelation 20:12 when John said "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and thebooks were opened: and another book was opened,which is the book of life: and the dead were judgedout of those things which were written in the books,according to their works."
It is because of our conviction that the Bible is God's moral standard, that the writers of this specialissue will refer again and again to what the Bible states. Morals are under fire in today's mixed upworld, we believe largely because people have stoppedstudying and obeying what the Bible teaches. Even among Christians there are evidences of greaterregard for the standards of this world than for God's moral standard. It is our prayer that this specialeffort will prove helpful in this time of moral crisis.We urge readers to make a special effort to see thattheir teenagers and college students read this issue ofthe paper. It would be a good thing if congregationswould secure enough copies to see that every youngperson in attendance has a copy. We believe it willalso be useful as a piece to hand to those you aretrying to convert to Christ. Many of them may begreatly concerned about the declining morals in ournation and will appreciate this help. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the good men who have spentmuch time in research and in writing this material.May the Lord help us all to honor his moral standard.
The title of this article identifies a significant contributory cause of today's immorality. This is true because the concept, claims, and actions of the movement itself undermines the home. Since the home is the foundation unit of society (Gen. 1:1824), a subverting of it necessarily results in a corrupted society. The home is undermined when thecharacter, relationship, and equally significant rolesof the partners therein, namely, husband and wife—male and female—are distorted. The Women's Liberation Movement does just this.
Those who believe the Bible should remember that God is our creator, and that he ordained the homeand authored the Bible. Furthermore, with infinite wisdom he designed each with a view to the veryultimate in joy, happiness, and fulfillment. The Bible,then, is the instruction book on how to attain all of this—the quest of men and women alike.
Man and woman were created equal in the sight ofGod, and with Him there is no such thing as the superiority of one over the other—so far as theirworth either to Him or to one another is concerned (Gen. 2:23,24; Eph. 5:28-31; Gal. 3:28). However, hedid create each with essential differences.
Contrary to the claim of the liberation movement,these differences are not produced by a difference ineducation, training, culture, or one's environment. These differences are basic. Man and woman differ anatomically, biochemically, and emotionally. God created them that way. This means that each has a different capacity for service. Furthermore, this difference enables each to serve with excellence in the different roles designed for his or her fulfillment. While these different roles involve one over the other in some relationships, such does not mitigate againsttheir equality in worth, honor, and fulfillment in life.Each serves in his respective role with honor and distinction and is a complement to the other. "Women's Lib" makes competitors of the two.
Woman was created to be man's complement (Gen. 1:18; 1 Cor. 11:9). It takes woman to fill this role—there is no substitute! It takes woman in all of her glory to fill it. However, when done, there is no other role, however respected among men, that bringsher greater fulfillment. For further reference on the basis differences cited above, I suggest Dr. James Dobson's book, What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. He is a licensed psychologist inthe State of California, associate Clinical Professor ofPediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and Director of Behavioral Research in the Division of Child Development, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. Here is a quote from the book: "In truth, they are unique in every cell of their bodies, for men carry a different chromosomal pattern than women. There is also considerable evidence to indicate that the hypothalamic region, located just above the pituitarygland in the mid-brain, is 'wired' very uniquely foreach of the sexes. Thus, the hypothalamus (known asthe seat of the emotions) provides women with a different psychological frame of reference than that of man. Further, female sexual desire tends to be somewhat cyclical correlated with the menstrual calendar, whereas males are acyclical. These and other features account for the undeniable fact that masculine and feminine expressions of sexuality are farfrom identical. Failure to understand this uniquenesscan produce a continual source of marital frustrationand guilt. . . . Dr. Katherina Dalton, in The Premenstrual Syndrome (Springfield, Ill., 1964)summarizes many studies of behavior change thatshow a large portion of women's crimes (63% in anEnglish study, 84% in a French) are not distributedevenly over time, but clustered in the premenstrualperiod along with suicides, accidents, a decline in thequality of school work, decline in intelligence test scores, visual acuity, and response speed. In the United States, she calculated that absenteeism related to menstruation costs about five billion dollars a year, but accidents, absenteeism, and domestic quarrels are only part of the social repercussions of symptoms that affect everyone. A book might be filled with discussion of other biological differences between the sexes, that are ofgreat importance in one way or another, in everydaylife, . . ." (pp 114, 131, 132).
These biological and other differences account forGod's assigning them different roles in life. Hence, women are not to serve as elders and evangelists—they are not to be teachers of God's word so as to exercise authority over man (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:511; 2:15; 1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34,35). Man has beenordained to the position of headship in the home(Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21). While they are not equalin all of life's relationships, they are equal in God's sight so far as their worth to God and to each otheris concerned. Furthermore, each finds his greatest possible fulfillment in life as he serves in his respective role. It is not commensurate with woman's nature to serve best in fighting battles, commandingarmies, controlling kingdoms, or in making laws. Her best is not to be found in braving the way and bearing the responsibilities of leadership. Man is best suited for this role. Woman's throne of glory is in thehome.
Unfortunately, The Women's Liberation Movement
equates this position with serfdom and talks loud
about boredom and how unfulfilling such a role is.
True, such involves doing the laundry, washing
dishes, cleaning house, nursing babies, tending
children, planning menus, shopping wisely, etc.
Properly viewed, however these are important responsibilities and are very rewarding. She shares equally with her husband (though doing differentthings) in providing a home atmosphere that is a haven of rest. Likewise, she shares equally in thegrowth and development of the children. Furthermore,she thereby becomes the object of the deepest respectamong men, the recipient of the tenderest love knownfrom all other members of the family. The deepsatisfaction and gratifying results of such a role isclearly pictured in Prov. 31:10-31.
Man's role, too, may be viewed as routine, boring,and frustrating. He faces competition from nearlyevery viewpoint—among fellow workers, sales, contracts, and merchandise. He must pay "the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker"—bills, bills, and more bills. He must deal with and try to solve the problems of his company,listen to complaints of employees, supervisors, et al.But, again, when properly viewed, such a role is rewarding. When self is forgotten in service to otherssatisfaction fills the soul. Honor, esteem, and distinction become his crown. He is the recipient ofappreciation from among his associates, and of thegreatest possible measure of love from those whoknow him best. When both man and woman fill their God-ordained roles, they find bliss and fulfillment forboth time and eternity.
This does not mean that there is no place, time, orcircumstance that would justify a woman serving inpublic life. The pressure of circumstances, even tragedies, sometimes necessitate it. Furthermore, inour modern society there are some positions in publiclife that can best be filled by woman. This, however,is a far cry from opening the doors of everyrelationship in public life to men and women alike.Such is subversive of divine wisdom. When mothers forsake their God ordained role for that of the man,the consequent evils are manifold. The marital relationship is frustrated, children suffer psychologically, juvenile delinquents increase, and the problem of immorality is multiplied many timesover. God's way is the only way for true happinessnow and forever.
Introduction. This writer remembers very well an incident back in the mid-thirties which shocked the rural neighborhood in Chesterfield County, Virginia where we lived. Though but a lad at the time, the memory is very clear until now. The incident involved two "wild girls" who "lived up the road". Theydelivered the newspaper for a week in the summer inthe absence of the regular paper boy. The brakes squeaked on their bicycles as they pulled up to theback porch and my mother came out to get the paper. All those girls had on was a two-piece thingscalled "shorts and halter"! My mother told them theyneeded to go home and get some clothes on. Later onGreat-Grandma said they needed to "have the hide beat off them" and Grand-mammy declared they didnot have enough on to "wad a shotgun". Truly they were all three correct.
But, this happened forty years ago and things havechanged so drastically that it literally makes the headswim to think about it. Actually, those girls had on agreat deal more then many are wearing today in public.
What Does God Want?
Let us address ourselves to the above question.What does God want? What is immodesty? The worditself is not in the Bible but its definition most certainly is. Modesty is its antithesis. The word modest is found in 1 Timothy 2:9 in connection with"apparel". It means "orderly, well-arranged, decent,modest". Vine says "the well-ordering is not of dressand demeanor only, but of the inner life, uttering indeed and expressing itself in the outward conversation." In the passage it is used with the word"adorn" which means "to arrange, to put in order." Its noun form, "adorning", denotes "a harmonious arrangement or order" thus showing a strong affinitybetween the words "modest" and "adornment or adorning." A third consideration is the word "apparel" in the some text which means "clothing".Therefore, the text is saying that women should orderor arrange themselves in decent clothing or attire. Itis obvious from the context that this ordering is primarily an "inner arranging" of the heart in that which is seemly as is also true in 1 Peter 3:3,4 wherethe emphasis is that of the proper adorning of "thehidden man of the heart." In the one case, the apparel is "shamefacedness and sobriety" and "goodworks" while in the other it is "a meek and quiet spirit."
What Is The Connection?
Some may wonder what this has to do with outward clothing and appearance. In both 1 Timothy 2:9,10 and 1 Peter 3:3-5 the emphasis is on the inner person, the heart. But the allusion is clearly made from the outer man. As the outer man is to be well-ordered, decent, modest in behaviour anddress, so let the inner man have on appropriate, well-ordered and modest dress, clothing or apparel of theheart. It is certain that th3 comparison would bemeaningless if the inner man must be modest in hisheart but not in outward conduct and appearance. Itis also clear that the heart must be modest first and this will be reflected in the conduct and clothing ofthe outer man. Inappropriate conduct or dress is aclear sign that there is nakedness of the heart whichneeds immediate attention.
Sin, Shame and Clothing
From Gen: 3:7-21 it is evident that the introduction of sin caused an awareness of nakedness and a resultant shame, thus creating a natural desireto cover up or to be clothed. At first man improvisedwith aprons of fig leaves and God later gave themmore substantial clothing of skins. From this time forth God has intended for mankind to cover up hisphysical nakedness with adequate and appropriate clothing or apparel.
In Genesis 9 we can learn that it was shameful for Noah to be publicly exposed and equally shamefulfor his son, Ham, to look upon the nakedness of hisfather. Compare this, if you will, to the practice ofsome fathers who bath in the nude with their sons and some mothers and daughters who do likewise. Isthis in harmony with Biblical principles of modesty?
In Luke 8:27 a man "which had devils long time,and ware no clothes" later, after having the devilsremoved, "was sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed andin his right mind." Those who want to run around publicly naked (streakers) or nearly so (the majority)need to think about this.
The Laodiceans were spiritually "naked" and the Lord told them to put on spiritual garments (whiteraiment) "that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear" (Rev. 3:18). Again the spiritual applicationwould mean nothing unless physical nakedness wasalso a shame. Add to this the spiritual lesson ofRevelation 16:15, "Behold, I come as a thief, Blessedis he that watcheth and keepeth his garments lest hewalk naked, and they see his shame." God does notintend for us to be indecently exposed whether spiritually or physically.
Temptation and Lust
Jesus teaches that it is a sin for a man to lust after a woman in his heart (Matt. 5:28). In this he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. David so lusted after Bathsheba. Although Godexpects a man to control himself, he expects a womanto not display herself in immodest, provocative, andseductive attire so as to invite the lustful look. Of course, it is also possible for a woman to lust after a man as she might flaunt himself in such a manner and dress so as to invite the fantasy of a woman towardhim in base desire. Many who would not do suchthings otherwise seem to think that the sports arenachanges everything. Brethren, whether it is basketball, volley ball, or tennis, boys and girlsshould observe the proprieties of modest dress. Therehas been a let-down in this type of thing. It needs tobe stopped. (Yes, even some of you preachers, elders,deacons and families.)
Why So Much Immodesty?
In today's setting of an utter lack of shame it is notsurprising that some seemingly do not realize or care in this regard. We have been flooded with the philosophy of situation ethics, free love, the new morality (?), the breakdown of the home, evolution,the "do your own thing" craze, etc. etc. Add to thisthe mass media such as TV with its attendant risquéapproach to everything (whether programming or commercials), the sex-oriented movies and books, pornography, and it is not surprising that men andwomen of today not only do not care if the others seetheir nakedness but in fact it is obvious that manyactually want you to see it and are disappointed ifyou do not notice. This writer is convinced that immodest apparel is wrong for both men and women.
Is It Relative?
Some say that decent or indecent exposure is largely determined by the times and circumstances.Does this sound like situation ethics a little bit? Myfriends, modesty and decency is not and can never bepredicated on such a flimsy platform. It is true thatsome garments are more appropriate to one occasionthan another such as a wedding garment or the casual attire for the picnic or lounging garments inthe home. Surely we would agree that a housecoatthat reached to the floor would not be appropriateattire to go to the grocery store but would be properaround the house. This is not to say that we may ever abandon principles of decency and modestywherever we are. Nakedness is only appropriate inthe marriage bed and the shower. Never is it in orderto be naked or nearly so in public.
What About Custom?
Some say that concepts change therefore modestyand immodesty must be considered in view of this.May we candidly say that any concept that changesso as to violate God's regulations governing decency and modesty is the wrong concept and should be abandoned. Lest some think that we are hinging immodesty only on going stark naked or nearly soaltogether, let us clarify. A person, man or woman,may also be immodest by the design or cut of a garment which has ample material. Filmy,transparent material that you can see through does not cover nakedness though it may contain yards and yards of fabric. Whenever any garment is so constructed, though the amount of cloth is adequate, that the organs of the body that pertain toone's nakedness are actually brought more into emphasis, that garment is both indecent and immodest.
Immodesty Among Church Members
The problem of immodesty is bad enough amongworldly people but, brethren, it is a very real problem among church members. Add to this the milk-sop attitudes of some elders, deacons and not a few preachers and their families and you have some mighty poor examples for the brethren to follow. Mini-skirts, shorts (shorts, short shorts, hot-pants),bikinis or the non-bikini, mixed swimming, the so-called backyard pool that is supposed to be private(who can believe it), are commonplace among some so-called Christians who "see no harm in it" and think those who oppose it are loco. Even now we see somewho have sowed this wind and are reaping thewhirlwind. There are some mothers and fathers who themselves would not engage in these things but their convictions are not sufficiently strong to insistthat their children observe proper modesty. They lettheir children run around and dress as they pleaseand become offended if someone rebukes them for this. God will hold them responsible for such.
Conclusion
It is not only time, but it is high time, that Christians set the standard for the world instead of the world setting it for the church. We need to be transformed and not conformed (Romans 12:1,2). Weresemble the world entirely too much (any is too much).We need to clean up our minds as a forerunner tocleaning up our behaviour, not the least of which is toclothe ourselves adequately, discreetly, and with alldue reverence for what God would have us do. Let Christians not be guilty of indecent exposure!
I have been assigned the subject: DRINKING AND DRUGS. I gratefully approach this subjectwith a firm conviction of what I say and shall writeto be understood. I am not concerned about pleasingthe brethren; I am concerned about speaking the truth and pleasing Almighty God.
I have found that no set of statistics is reallycomplete and up to date. There is a constant increasein the figures of alcohol and drug use and a greatervariety of destruction. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, social workers, educators, and Mr. John Q. Public all try to excuse the growing abuse ofall drugs by calling it "an illness" or "disease." I suppose in a broad sense that is so. But so is the sexpervert, the thief, the rebel, the foul mouthed slanderer, and many other criminals. To call it an illness does not eliminate the fact that alcoholism and other drug addiction are SIN! Those guilty of thisabuse of their bodies and minds will go to hell if theydo not repent and quit their sinful practice!
Some years ago I stood before a group of youngpeople and held in my hand a beautiful, fresh, red rose, with its delicate petals glowing in graceful slender. I called attention to these attractive qualities that it possessed as it came from God. I then took an eye-dropper and put one drop of acid onone petal. It immediately began to curl and twist asif in extreme pain. After a few more drops of acidthis once beautiful rose was now a putrid mess ofugly, wrinkled ashes. I was illustrating the effects ofalcohol and other drugs upon the human body, and especially upon the beauty of youth. The power of theillustration was observed upon the faces of each oneof them as they beheld the death of this beautiful creation of God by the acid put upon it.
All statistics and authorities report that America's No. 1 problem today is the alcohol and drug abuse.This is the life of shame. The reasons why people drink alcohol, "pop pills," "smoke pot," "get a fix," or "take a trip" may vary, but the end result isalways the same: shame, disease, prison, and death.Youth may begin this life of shame for the excitementof a new experience, or to dull the conscience whileengaging in other immoral and illegal acts. It couldbe the influence of their peers, or rebellion againstparents, the establishment, school, or just simply aneffort to escape the reality of a hypocritical, affluentand materialistic society. Among some the reasons may be to hide shame and failure, to avoid responsibility, to escape loneliness and insecurity, andsimply to avoid facing themselves as they are. Whatever the
reason, the end result is a shameful life and an untimelydeath without hope in eternity.
Alcohol, and Drugs — Why?
The efforts to stop the flow of hard drugs into thiscountry by organized crime are a failure, in spite ofthe ever enlarging police force and the billions of dollars spent annually to stop it. The absurd philosophy expressed in the local, state and nationallegislative bodies in overwhelmingly passing laws tolegalize alcoholic beverages and some other drugs isseen in the same legislative sessions passing bills that allocate billions of dollars of tax payers money to stop drug addiction among children as well asother offenders. In addition, they build larger prisonsto keep those who turn to crime in order to feed thehabit.
Sex, pornography, rape, armed robbery, murderand drugs of all kinds, including alcohol, go together.It is almost axiomatic that if we could stop thealcohol habit, we could stop all the rest. I say that because the social drink leads to drunkenness, which leads to various crimes drunkards commit because they are drunk! Social drinking leads to alcoholism, which finally leads to other drugs. Thehard drug addict will commit any crime without compunction of conscience to pay for the habit, and itgets to the point that it takes large amounts daily tosupply them. It must come by theft, murder,prostitution, gambling, organized crime, etc., becausethese drug addicts are non-productive.But how does all this get started? It is probable thatthe fast changing life-style of the day has a greatinfluence upon drug habits. It all can begin so innocently: with both parents working in the mad race to "have and to hold" what wealth they can get, their children are untaught and exposed to any number of avenues to alcohol and drug addiction. The parents who want a "little drink" to relax the tensions after a hard day's work, soon find themselvesalcoholics and their children following in their steps,and to go on to more serious involvement with drugs.Television is constantly advertising dope in one form or another as the happy and successful way oflife. It makes no difference what kind of movie you see, at theaters or on TV, somebody is alwaysdrinking to something! A baby is born and all in thefamily will pour a glass of whiskey or "champagne" and drink to the baby. Some tramp is shot to death,and everyone gets a glass and drinks to celebrate thegood riddance. A young couple gets married and everyone "drinks a toast" to their happiness. Usually most will keep on "toasting" until they are unconscious. Foreign dignitaries come to some politicalagreement and the newspapers, magazines and TVwill show the heads of state "sealing" the agreementwith a "round of toasts" until some are pretty far outfrom reality.
It is important to be "accepted" by those of the
"in" crowd. Many young men and women become
drug addicts because they do not want to be ridiculed
be their peers, and do not want to become unpopular
with others of their age group. Most people are
"followers" and they fear rejection by society. This is
true in business, school, sports, family, and society ingeneral. It is true in the church. It may seem to these "rejected" people that some form of drug, usually beginning with alcohol, will give them thecourage to dispel that fear of rejection.
Self escape from reality, family fusses, financial problems, and even the fear of aging or some otherproblem leads many to take their first drink of alcohol and then on to the stronger means of escaping reality. Indulgence in all forms of immoral andillegal practices may follow this numbness of consciousness.
The Problem of Alcohol
The Bible plainly condemns the use of alcohol anddrugs for intoxication. Many "social drinking"brethren will cry that the statement is not so, butthere is not one instance in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit authorized the use of alcohol in anyform for the purpose of intoxication to any degree.Contrariwise, the Bible condemns drunkenness as a work of the flesh and those guilty cannot enter heaven (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9,10; Rom. 13:13).
The repulsive picture of the facts about alcohol andother drugs is nothing when compared to the sin-sickcondition of a hopeless nation and the billions whowill go to hell because of the deception and addictionof those who left the truth or never knew it, all because of alcohol and other drugs.
The Mental Danger of Addiction
The Bible condemns drug abuse by the word "Sorcery" (Witchcraft, KJV) in such passages as Galatians 5:20; Revelation 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15.The Greek term is pharmakia, from which we get the English "pharmacy." W. E. Vine says "sorcery" primarily signifies the use of medicine, drugs, spells;then, poisoning; then, sorcery, Gal. 5:20. This is classified as a work of the flesh. The word signifiesthe use of drugs, generally accompanied byincantations and appeals to occult powers, and thepurpose was to take away one's power over his own mind, will and judgment. Drugs are usually taken with a view to alter the mind, emotions, will and judgment. While one is drunk he is not responsiblefor his language and conduct, but he is responsibleand accountable to God and man for GETTING drunk. He could avoid that. But once he is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug, he does nothave control of his own mind, thinking, reasoning and judgment. This is sinful and wrong.
"Sober" or "Sober-minded" is the very opposite ofmind affecting drugs or influences. The original worddenotes "of sound mind" which is self-control. It signifies "to be free from the influences of intoxicants," and "denotes to cause to be of sound mind, to recall to one's senses" (W. E. Vine). (1 Tim.3:2; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:8; 2:4).
Some Frightening Statistics on Alcoholism
America is literally committing suicide. The liquorand drug problem is costing this nation an unbelievable figure in terms of money, loss of workhours, mental and physical health problems that will go on to future generations, and mounting crime thathas reached such proportions that no police force cankeep it down. No citizen is safe anymore, day ornight. If this trend keeps on this civilization will passaway in this generation unless by some means ouryounger people can realize just how dangerous thismenace is to them and their children.
Almost any set of figures on drug abuse will be outof date by the time it is quoted. However, bycomparison of several reliable sources and surveys Ican give some idea of the terrible state of moraldecay and corruption that is in epidemic proportionsin this nation and throughout the world.
In Alcohol & Health Notes, Rockville, Maryland,September, 1973, a survey of drinking problems ofthe Army and Navy were compared. An article on the front page contained these statements:
"Alcohol-related absences from duty cost the Armyan estimated 2,200 man-years with $17 million in payand allowances in fiscal 1973, says Dr. Richard S. Wilbur, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Healthand Environment.
"Furthermore, Dr. Wilbur says, a substantial amount of Army duty time in fiscal '73 was affected by reduced efficiency caused by drinking."
In a survey of 5,579 enlisted men in the Army and895 enlisted men in the Navy the following was
| 31%19%8%3% | 22% 16% 20% 3% |
Notice that only 3 men out of every 100 in both theArmy and Navy do not consume alcohol. This is thecondition of the defense force of our nation! But note that in the Army 89 out of every 100 men are impaired by drinking, and in the Navy 77 men outof each 100 are impaired by drinking! And some"pious" brother or sister will cry, "There is nothing wrong with social drinking; the Bible does not condemn it." Nearly all these in the Armed Forcesstarted with a "little social drink" somewhere with the belief that it will do no harm and there is no wrong init.
Some data collected from the National Council on Alcoholism, Inc. is:
Alcohol is a mood-changing drug, as are marijuana, heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and amphetamines.
57.4% of all car accidents involve alcohol.
50% of all fatal car accidents involve alcohol.
The FBI reports that every third arrest in the USAinvolves public drunkenness.More than 95% of short-term prisoners serve timein jail because of alcoholism.The ratio of alcoholics to non alcoholics committingsuicide in the USA is 58 to 1.
Among Federal civil employees the estimated annual cost for alcoholism in the Federal Government runs between $275 million and $550 million. Savingsfrom alcoholism programs in the Federal Governmentcould run from $135 million to $280 million a year.
The National Council On Alcoholism, Inc., 2 ParkAvenue, New York, N.Y. published a tract in 1974 called "The Alcoholic" in which some vital information is given. The definition of an alcoholic:"He's one of the dozen men or women you'll seetaking a drink at your next party or in your localbar. . .one of the 9 million alcoholics among our nation's drinkers.
This tract says that the majority of Americansdrink alcohol, but the alcoholic is an addict to thedrug alcohol. Now when I speak of an alcoholic I amspeaking of about one tenth of the alcohol consumersin the nation. With that in mind, hear another statement from "The Alcoholic":
"On his job, one of 4 million alcoholic workers, he costs at least 10 billion dollars annually inabsenteeism, sick leave, wasted time and material, andaccidents. If an executive, he costs an incalculable sum in time spent recovering from last night'shangover, sleeping off today's martini lunch, making wrong decisions that may involve millions of dollars."
The tract continues: "No. 3: Where does he suffer?
"Alcoholism destroys his health. Physically he becomes more susceptible to infections, anemia,disease of the liver, heart, brain and other organs and to cancer, particularly of the liver and throat. He may need permanent institutionalization because ofbrain damage; 40 percent of all male admissions tostate mental hospitals suffer from alcoholism.
"Alcoholism disrupts his home; it accounts,directly or indirectly, for 40 percent of the problemsbrought to family court. The alcoholic's failure as a parent makes it hard, often impossible, for his children to develop the trust and confidence in themselves and others which they need for successfulliving. Between 30 and 40 percent of delinquentyouths come from alcoholic homes."
"When does he know what hit him? He usually doesn't. Most commonly, he progresses into alcoholism after 5 or 10 years of social drinking, withno immediate, dramatic change to dispel his illusionthat he drinks like everyone else."
But most people today insist that there is nothing wrong with "social drinking." The problem of Alcoholism, the No. 1 drug problem of the nation,begins with the "social drinker." If there were nosocial drinking, there would be no ALCOHOLISM!
Drinking drivers and pedestrians cause more than25,000 traffic deaths and 800,000 crashes in the United States each year. One tenth of the nation's drivers, men and women, are alcoholics. 24% of alcoholic deaths are violent: by fire, poisoning, suicide, accidents, and falls.
The Fruits of Alcoholism and Drug Addition
It is hard to find the most effective demonstration to impress the horrible consequences of drug addictionin any degree. From a number of sources the following information was gleaned. The figure is probably higher now because some of it was published two or three years ago. But just thinkabout these consequences of the drug problem:
1. There are more then 2 million girls and more boys who have venereal disease, and most of it connected with drugs in some way.
- Nearly five times as much tax money is spenton alcohol and other drugs as on education.
- All forms of crime have risen sharply in the United States in the past ten years as the result of thedrug problem.
- From 1.5 to 2 million illegitimate children wereborn annually, until the Infant Murder Law (abortion) was passed and upheld by the High Court of theland.
- There are many children between ages 7 through 17 who are addicts on hard drugs, and are hardenedcriminals whose usefulness to society will be nothing and who will likely die some miserable death beforereaching age 36.
- Alcoholism is responsible for more homes breaking up and more neglected and abused childrenthan any other single thing.
- More deaths from alcohol than from war. ABC's Of Drinking & Driving, published by Channing L. Bete Co., Inc., Greenfield, Mass., 1971, stated the problem this way:"Drunken Drivers kill 6 times as many as Vietnam War. Fact: In the 10* years of the Vietnam War,45,000 U.S. Soldiers have been killed by the enemy.In this same 10* years, 274,000 U.S. Citizens died incrashes involving alcohol. * 1961-71
- There are 112 million drivers and 100 million drinkers: results — about +55,000 deaths in U.S.highway accidents EACH YEAR, (as per National Safety Council).
- I saw and heard the following warning presentedby the president's Committee On Mental Health, onNBC Television on May 5, 1976. The warning statedthat two ounces of alcohol or ten cigarettes per day isthe danger zone that threatens your child's mental health. Millions of babies are born each year with painful problems of withdrawal from tobacco or alcohol because of the indulgence of the mothersbefore the birth of the children.
When one takes drugs to "blow my mind" he will do just that. I recall the many newspaper reports ofstudents of various ages jumping out of windows tofly like a bird and falling to their death severalstories below. One poured gasoline over himself andset himself on fire and burned to death. Many young men and women are in mental hospitals incurablyderanged from various drugs, including alcohol. Onecut himself to death with a knife. It is a daily routinefor rescue and paramedic squads in fire departmentsacross the country to answer from one to twentyOD's (over dose) and many of them die without regaining consciousness.
10. Alcoholism will ruin the life and influence of a man in a split second. A classic example is the trafficaccident involving M. Norvel Young while he was drunk. From the Los Angeles Times, Wednesday,September 17, 1975 there appeared the headlines:
"Pepperdine's Chancellor Held in Fatal Crash" byGrahame L. Jones, Times Staff Writer. The sad storybegins:
"Pepperdine University Chancellor M. Norvel Young was jailed on suspicion of manslaughter and felony drunk driving after being involved in a trafficaccident in which one woman was killed and two others were critically injured, the California HighwayPatrol reported."
On page 7 of the March, 1976 issue of Contending For The Faith, Ira Y. Rice publishes the account of Young's activities that dreadful day in Septemberwhen he caused the death of two elderly ladies andanother to be crippled for life, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, January 28, 1976, byJohn Kendall, Times Staff Writer. On page 24 Young is reported to have said, speaking of his conflict between his work at Pepperdine and his desire toplease the brethren:
"This profound conflict between my head and myheart has gnawed away at my very sense of selfworth. By the evening of September 15, I was in themost deeply depressed state of my entire life."
"Then, Young wrote, he went out and did something 'out of character,' He bought a fifth ofvodka, drank about two-thirds on the evening of the15th and finished it off the next morning before noon.
"Young, 60, left his Malibu home at about 11:30
a.m. or 11:40 a. m., after taking a Librium capsule, hesaid, and about seven miles down the coast he raninto a car driven by Mrs. Fritsche."
"On Sunday, Dec. 14, Young's confession to members of his church was read at a Sunday meetingin Malibu. . ."
"I come before you in a spirit of contrite confessionof sin. . .I must live with the awful realization that my grief cannot bring back a human life or erase theinjury to so many. I confess to you that my use ofalcohol was involved in this accident. (Emp. mine-HEP) To say that I am profoundly sorry is such afeeble and inadequate expression of my stricken conscience. . ."
"I want to go further in explanation, but not tomake any excuse. There can be no excuse. For 50years I abstained from alcohol and taught against its use. As President of Pepperdine, I attended thousands of functions where it was served, but didnot partake. In a mistaken attempt to relieve stress,I began to use alcohol occasionally. . ."
As the consequence of Norvel Young's intoxication,two women are dead and one crippled for life, andYoung was sentenced to four years probation and oneyear in jail, which was suspended conditionally, andfined $2,000.00. He is ordered by the court to take aleave of absence from Pepperdine and devote full timeto research and lecturing in a drinking driver projectat USC's safety center. He was ordered not to drinkany alcoholic beverage for four years, and he cannotdrive any car for the four year period of probation.
He has lost self-respect and must suffer the painfulshame and disgrace of the entire nation. Not only didhe lose what he had, but he lost what he could be asin the past. On September 20th, four days followingthe accident, Norvel Young was to have presented aPepperdine honorary degree to President Gerald Ford. Alcohol destroyed all that and ruined his publiclife forever.
Now tell me one, just ONE good thing that comesfrom the drinking of alcoholic beverages or the consumption of any drug except for medical use prescribed by a physician. Drunkenness and drug addiction is spiritually, mentally, physically and socially fatal. It will destroy this life and all hope ofthe life to come. Now is the time to completely abstain.
Dancing finds expression in two basic types. There is the type which requires close body contact and sometimes the entwining of the legs of the partnersas expressed in the waltz and such. Then there is the more modern expression which places the partnersapart and engages each in the body movements which to him or her interprets the music. This type hasbeen identified by names which change as often asthe season but it has one thing common to each, suggestive body movement. Most if not all of our readers understand the activity but we differentiate between the two types because one has its effect primarily through touch and the other through sight.
Before an indictment can logically be lodged against dancing we must establish what threatens spirituality and jeopardizes one's faith. An objectiveconsideration of any threat to spirituality and thepurity of mind and life which such demands, mustbegin by establishing the basis of the threat. The apostle John wrote, "Love not the world, neither thethings that are in the world. If any man love theworld, the love of the Father is not in him. For all
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lustof the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father,but is of the world, And the world passeth away andthe lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever" ( 1 Jn. 2: 15-17). Dancing asbroadly defined in the above paragraph labors underthe three count indictment of this passage. It has its appeal to the fleshly nature of man through what hesees and what he touches and is touched by. For alarge number the third avenue of appeal cannot be discounted, "pride of life," as we equate this to theneed for being accepted by one's peer group and being identified as one of the crowd.
While older and mature Christians are not immune to the threat posed by the dancing pleasure, youth isparticularly vulnerable. The vulnerability lies in their susceptibility to temptation. Temptation is not the problem however, succumbing to it and the resultant sin is. "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot betempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of hisown lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death" (Jas. 1: 13-15). When one engages in those things which appeal to his sensualnature he jeopardizes the spiritual. Wisdom, real lovefor the Lord and the things of the spirit demand refraining from all such.
Why does dancing pose such a threat to spirituality? It caters to the lust of the flesh in thatit stirs the partner or partners to unholy thinking ifnot actions. In the first avenue of appeal attributed to Satan, noted from John, "lust of the flesh," dancing must be indicted. The contact of bodies in the close embrace and rhythmic movement stirred bythe soft music generates a desire, maybe only an elementary one in some, for sexual gratification. The desire itself may suffice for the moment (just to bestimulated may for some be enough) but for otherthan husband and wife this is sin. Lest one jump tothe conclusion that it is right for husband and wife toengage in public dancing, I hasten to negate. The power of example and influence upon others would certainly be sufficient deterrent to this.
Dancing, the loose jointed, no bodily contact typenow, caters to the "lust of the eye." In the line of Flip Wilson's "Geraldine," "what you see is what you get," is something of the effect from such modern dances as the "bump," "shrug," and what have you. The suggestive body movements, the lewdgyrations to the rhythm of "rock" music, which sometimes by the lyrics leaves nothing to the imagination, presents a picture only the most naive orblind could ignore. In such an expression the animalnature is obviously in control and any thought of thespirit and the spiritual is cast to the wind.
Dancing must also be considered in relation to thethird avenue of appeal noted by John, "the pride oflife." Some are willing to cast caution and better judgment out in order to be accepted by their peers."Everybody does it" has become a "security blanket"for the justification of anything many want to do. "Proms" and "school dances" are the "in" thing andto keep from being anything but "cool" one must go.Pride becomes a greater goal, acceptance by friends amore important consideration than relation to Christ.
Dancing has a proven destructive effect uponspirituality and reverence. Observation has established that it is next to impossible to maintain a strong spiritual attitude and engage in worldly pursuits and activities. There is a deadening of spirituality, a dimming of the brightness of faith andan indulgent attitude toward all things of the same general class which invariably develops within the individual who flirts with and engages in the thingsof this world. Dancing is a case in point. Invariably, members of the church who dance and condone activities of this class are weak and indifferent in matters of faith and spirituality. Young people whoare caught up in such activities generally manifest a disinterested, if not an insubordinate, attitude to worship. Someone has aptly expressed the inconsistency between spirituality and sensuality asevidenced in dancing like this, "a dancing foot and apraying knee are not found on the same leg." Quitepossibly the explanation is in the truth of Jesus' statement, "No man can serve two masters: for he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Mt. 6:24).
In the cataloging of the "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5: 19-21 Paul lists two things which are expressed in dancing, "lasciviousness" and "revellings." The dictionary defines "lasciviousness" as "lewd, lustful, that which is tending to produce lewd emotions." In the New Testament usage of theterm we have this idea according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, page 80. "Unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence. . .Wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females." "Reveling" is defined as "a spectacular dance." Liddell and Scott, eminent Greek scholars translate the original word for reveling, "dancing."
Does dancing fall within the scope and meaning ofthese two things? Quotations from some who have engaged professionally and socially in the practiceseem to leave no doubt and, if there is any, a passingglance at the programs on television which propagate this sort of thing should remove it. One renowned champion dancer and originator of manynoted society dances says, "I will say that I do notbelieve a woman can waltz virtuously and waltz well,for she must yield her person completely to her partner." Another says, "The modern dance is the fineart of covering with music, indelicate, immodest andoft times indecent attitudes and postures between men and women. It is too bad for reformation. Its remedy isextermination." Another describes it as a "wrestling match with no holds barred." Remember the words of Paul in Galatians Chapter 5? "They which do suchthings shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Jesus laid down a principle which, though not primarily applicable to dancing, has some bearing."Every tree is known by its fruit" (Lk. 6:44). Thereis no good fruit from engaging in dancing, it is allbad. Spirituality is not cultivated in this activity, only sensuality. Purity of heart and life is not theresult, only temptation, the stirring of unlawful desire and a lusting of the flesh. It results in a blending of the Christian with the world which can only produce, at best, a worldly Christian of lukewarm love and faith who will ultimately be "spewed" out by the Lord.
I, as a Christian, a parent, do not want mychildren engaging in this expression of worldlinessand as long as they are under my control and scrutiny will not tolerate it. Being responsible fortheir instruction and development spiritually in theirformative years the responsibility weighs heavilyupon every parent to properly enlighten and explain in these areas. May God help us to realize that between the Christian and the world there is a great gulf. The dance belongs to the world, the Christian toChrist. This means that when and if one dances, youdo so not as a Christian but as one who has turned his back upon Christ. May God help us all to maintain the high level of spirituality that sets usabove and apart from the world.
The strong sexual desire that is part of everynormal person is not sinful in origin or presence. It israther a natural instinct bestowed upon mankind bythe Creator for the good of the human race. Marriage was divinely ordained to provide the intimate relationship between a man and a woman whereinsexual desire may be properly gratified and may fullyaccomplish its intended purpose. Therefore, marriage is to be held in honor among all people and themarriage bed kept free of defilement (Heb. 13:4).
The Practice of Premarital Sex
When man "changed the truth of God for a lie," itwas inevitable that marriage would be degraded andsexual desire subjected to corruption. Wicked hearts invented every conceivable form of sexual abuse. Thesexual instinct that was meant to be a binding forceblending two lives into a beautiful, complete, andhappy union thus became an instrument for evil. Sex ceased to be man's servant and became his master. It has remained so wherever Satan controls the hearts of men.
Premarital sex is but one form of unchaste behavior, but it is one that has always found popularapproval with the young people of the world. Its increasing prevalence today is due to the permissiveness of society toward sexual freedom ingeneral. Those who advocate and defend premaritalsex fall into two camps. First, there are those whohold that intercourse prior to marriage is right undercertain conditions, as when a stable relationship witha strong affection, or an intent to marry, is present.Second, there are those who claim that premarital intercourse is right regardless of the circumstances, providing there is physical attraction and mutual consent. The first view is more dangerous because itseeks to justify the act with the conscience and togive it a cloak of respectability.
Young people are told there is no fixed standard ofmorality. They repeatedly hear it said that what really counts is "the law of love." "Love determines the course of action in any given situation." If a young couple has a strong affection, what is the "loving" thing to do? That is the only standard.
Aside from this being wrong on its basic premise,what it really boils down to is that each person makeshis own subjective decision as to what he is to do inany situation. Most young people in a romantic situation where sexual desire is straining at the leash could hardly distinguish between intent to marry inDecember and aroused passion in July.
Premarital Sex Is Fornication
Premarital intercourse is wrong regardless of the circumstances. Paul says: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and letevery woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).This necessarily places all sexual relations outside ofmarriage under the heading of "fornication." The only way one may engage in sexual intercourse without sin is to be married and confine his sexual relations to his companion. It doesn't matter how deeply a couple may be in love, nor how firm theirresolve to marry, if they cohabit outside of marriageit is sin.
It is a serious mistake, therefore, to suppose thereis no harm in premarital sex. It certainly harms one's fellowship with God. Fornication is a work of the flesh that will keep the guilty from inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). Many in Sodom and Gomorrah may have been convinced there was noharm in fornication, but they suffered "the vengeance of eternal fire" because they were "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh" (Jude 7).
Yet, many young people who know that premaritalsex is wrong go ahead and practice it anyway. Someof these don't care that it is wrong, but others areself-deceived. They think their case is exceptional andGod will not hold them accountable for the sin. Theyforget that there is no respect of persons with God.Or they rationalize their sin by telling themselvesthat there will be time to repent later. There may be,but they have no promise of it (Jas. 4:19). This is a dangerous attitude. One who seeks to justify sin on the premise that he may sin now and pray forforgiveness later manifests a condition of heart thatcould very well make genuine repentance impossible(Heb. 3:12).
Other Harm in Premarital Sex
In addition to the spiritual harm caused bypremarital sex, there are other harmful consequencesinvolved. There is the danger of pregnancy which may bring open shame upon the innocent child, godly parents, the church, and the guilty parties themselves. There is the possibility of a "forced" marriage which according to statistics has little chance of success. Venereal disease is also a distinct possibility. But there is another harmful effect that may not be immediately apparent. This is the loss ofself-respect that frequently follows the sinful act. This may be present even if there is no pregnancy, forced marriage, or venereal disease,and nobody finds out about it. The individual knowswhat he has done and he knows it is wrong. It is thisknowledge that often produces the keen sense of shame that results in a
loss of self-respect. This can be so severe as to interfere with one's future happiness in marriage. "Indeed, near the top of the list of the costs of unchastity is a very much lowered self-esteem—yetthe power to love another rests upon the ability to respect oneself," (Dr. Evelyn Duvall, quoted in Reader's Digest, January, 1968, p. 84).
Depth studies, such as one made by the late Prof.Lewis M. Terman, of Stanford University, have concluded that "of those men and women who have had premarital sexual intercourse, the more promiscuous they have been premaritally, the lesslikely they are to be happily married" (Ibid.). Dean Ernest Gordon, of Princeton University Chapel, says:"From my experience, I am forced to conclude thatchastity and marriage are twins," (Ibid.). Addison H. Leitch, writing on the "new morality," observes that: "The laws of God are the directions of the package oflife. We may mix up the ingredients any way wewant, but what comes out will not be what is picturedon the package" (Christianity Today, September 2, 1966, p. 58).
The Course for the Christian
Paul dealt with problems of sexual origin in writingto the church at Corinth. The saints in that city weresurrounded by a sexually debased society, but theapostle made no compromise with popular practices.Nowhere does he refer normatively to premarital lossof virginity. His solution for those in love who "can't wait" is simple. He said "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:5). Marriage is the only alternative he offers to total sexual abstinence. The Biblical view is that premarital sex is wrong for both men and women regardless of the circumstances. A woman's sexual duty is to "her own husband," not to a husband to be, and a man's sexual duty is to "his own wife" (1Cor. 7:3,4).
Young people who want to please God and who wanttheir marriage to begin and to thrive on sexual puritywill not engage in premarital sex. They will avoid allthe spiritual, physical, and emotional consequencesof sexual freedom before marriage by refusing to takepart in it. Nor will they engage in unchaste petting.This is not only wrong within itself, but it can breakdown the resolve to abstain from premarital intercourse. Half a century ago Brother C. M. Pullias very wisely said: "Any young girl that permitsthe opposite sex to fondle and handle her has pitched her tent toward Sodom, and as a result may find herself ruined and forever disgraced" (The Life and Works of Charles Mitchell Pullias, p. 111). One who doesn't plan a trip to Sodom has no business camping in that direction.
There are several valid reasons why premarital sexshould be shunned, but the most important reason isits sinfulness. Young people should possess the attitude of Joseph in this regard. When Potiphar's wife tried to lead him into premarital sex with her, it was not fear of conception, infection, or detectionthat kept him from it. He rather said: "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God" (Gen. 39:9)? To those who want to do right this isreason enough.
Gibbons, in his book, The Decline and Fall of theRoman Empire, 1788, said one of the reasons for thefall of the Roman empire was: "The rapid increase ofdivorce: the undermining of the dignity and sanctityof the home, which is the basis of human society."
If that is any indication of what it takes for anation to fall, then according to the following statistics, we had better beware. In 1975 there were approximately one million divorces. And, it is projected that there will be somewhere in the area of10,000,000 divorces in this present decade. Of coursethe reason for giving these statistics will be apparentas we proceed in our lesson.
The word "adultery" is a word that is used in the Bible to describe, for the most part, the illicit sexualrelations of one who is, or who has been, married. However, it is also used in the Bible to describe thosewho involve themselves in illicit sexual acts in general (Matt. 5:28; 2 Peter 2:14).
The word "marriage" as it used in the Bible, is used in two different senses. It is used of a relationship that is approved of God and of a relationship that is not approved of God (see chartbelow).
By reading Matt. 19:5,9, we see the distinctionthat is made by Christ and how he uses the word "married" in an accommodative sense. Paul also used it that same way in Romans 7:2-3, and it is so usedin the world today. When two people have met therequirements of man, (see lower part of chart) theyare "married" in the eyes of man. However, this is one of the reasons I have been asked to write on this subject. For even though men accept these "marriages" as both legal, and sometimes scriptural,in the sight of God they are "adulterous marriages"—and are, in fact, nothing more then two people committing fornication (adultery) in God's sight. It is obvious from the statistics in the second paragraph that this presents a real (not imaginary) problem for those who are in the world and are married and divorced a number of times and then desire to become Christians.
Many do not believe that God's laws are applicable to the alien sinner—therefore if he marries and divorces before becoming a Christian, he is not living in adultery. However, Paul specifically points out the fact that the Corinthians were fornicators and adulterers before they obeyed the gospel (1 Cor. 6:911), thus amenable to the law of God.
Jesus plainly points out in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark10:11-12; Luke 16:18; that if one puts away (divorces)his spouse for any reason other than fornication and marries another, he commits adultery. And, the one who marries the "put away one" (whether she is "putaway" for fornication or for some other reason)) commits adultery.
The word "commits" adultery is a present active indicative word that describes a continuous action. Hence, since God only allows two reasons for thosewho are married to receive freedom to remarry (fornication, Matt. 19:9; death, Romans 7:2-3) then divorcing one's husband and/or wife and remarrying is nothing more than legalized adultery in the sight ofGod; and those who are in this condition are "livingin adultery" and will continue to do so as long asthey commit the sexual act with this unlawful partner(Col. 3:5-7; Romans 7:2-3).
Since therefore, those who are involved in "adulterous marriages" are not in fact married in thesight of God but simply living in adultery, we warnthem to get out of such a relationship. For Paul saidthat the adulterer "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21).
The sin of homosexuality is nothing new. It is nowopenly discussed, admitted, and practiced.
The Pope Paul VI has been accused, but denied,being a homosexual (Birmingham News, April 5,1976, page 4). "A minister of the Church of God, Anderson, Ind." admits to being a homosexual and says there are "thousands of gay believers" (Birmingham News, April 3, 1976, page 5). "One of every 20 male athletes was homosexual" and "up to 20" per cent of women athletes were such (Parade Magazine, March 7, 1976, page 24). Children are often abused by homosexuals to fulfill their perverted desires (Birmingham News, Dec. 10, 1975, page 18).The Catholic Church say homosexuals who are "such because of some kind of . . . a pathologicalconstitution judged to be incurable" must be treatedby the Church "with understanding and sustainedin hope of overcoming their personal difficulties andinability to fit into society" (Birmingham News, Jan.15, 1976, page 27). On the other hand "a French priest-physician, the Rev. Mark Oraison, claims thatlove among homosexuals can be fully acceptable in the light of Gospel teaching" (Birmingham News, Jan. 28, 1976, page 1). "The 2-million-member United Church of Christ" granted "an acknowledgedhomosexual in San Carlos, California" to be ordainedto the ministry of that denomination (Gospel Truths,June 29, 1972, page 2). "Dear Abbey" said "The factthat homosexuality is morally condemned by most people in our culture makes it seem abnormal. In other times and in other cultures it has not alwaysbeen so judged. Much of the maladjustments seen inhomosexuals is due to rejection, persecution and guiltimposed upon them by an intolerant and unenlightened society" (Newport Daily Independent,July 18, 1973). The Philadelphia Inquirer of Dec. 27,1975, said, "The Episcopal Bishop of New York saysthat many clergymen in his church have been homosexuals and that the ordination of an avowed lesbian as a deacon in the church is a sign of ahealthy change." A tract published by The Church ofGod of Prophecy entitled "Sodomy" says on page 2,"Certain national magazines have mentioned the establishment of a Sodomy church in Hollywood andsimilar type congregations in Chicago, San Diego,and San Francisco."
An Ancient Sin
Fourteen of the first fifteen Roman emperors practiced this sin. Nero had married in openceremony a eunuch made so by surgery and livedwith him (Barclay on 1 Corinthians, page 60). Further, Barclay says, "From the highest to the lowest society was riddled with homosexuality. Thiswas the vice which Rome learned from Greece. J. J. Dollinger calls it 'the great national disease of Greece' " (Flesh and Spirit, page 26). Inspiration tells of this (Rom. 1:26-27).
What Is Homosexuality?
Another name for homosexuality is sodomy. Sodomyis a Biblical word. "A sodomite is one who practicessodomy, sexual relationship between males" (The New Smith's Bible Dictionary, page 364). It is "an unnatural crime, consisting of the defilement of man with man. . .The name is derived from Sodom, inwhich city the crime was frequent" (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, page 859). Simply defined homosexuality or sodomy is sexual relationships between a man and another man. Sexual relationships between a woman and another woman islesbianism, which Webster defines as "homosexual relations between women" (New Collegiate Dictionary, page 482). Both homosexuality and lesbianism are condemned in the Bible.
God Speaks
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. . . .Defile not yeyourselves in any of these things: for in all these thenations are defiled which I cast out before you" (Lev.18:22,24). "If a man also lie with mankind, as helieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; theirblood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). God said of Jerusalem and Judah, "they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not" (Isa. 3:9). Call it whateveryou please, God said it was "S I N."
The men of Gibeah said unto one "Bring forth theman that came into thine house, that we may knowhim" (Jud. 19:22). The "men of Sodom" said to Lot, "where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out that we may know them"(Gen. 19:5). The word "know" in these two passageshas the same meaning as in other Old Testament passages such as Gen. 4:1, 17. When men "knew"other men God said it was "sin" (Gen. 18:20; Lam. 4:6) and "iniquity" (Gen. 19:15).
In the New Testament God has spoken. Paul said "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" (Rom. 1:26). That is lesbianism. Further, Paul said, "likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burnedin their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly" (Rom. 1:27). Thatis sodomy or homosexuality. Paul said some of the Corinthians had been before conversion "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (1 Cor.6:9) and in that condition they were "unrighteous"and "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.6:9). Paul said of "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Tim. 1:10) that they were sinners. Defining "effeminate" Thayer says, "a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Cor. 6:9" (page 387). Of the expression "abusers of themselveswith mankind" and "defile themselves with mankind" Thayer says it comes from a compound word thatmeans "a male" and "a bed" and is defined "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10" (page 75).
Against Nature
When God created Adam, God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him ahelp meet for him" (Gen. 2:18). God "made a woman,and brought her unto man" (Gen. 2:22). God decreed"a man shall leave his father and mother, and shallcleave unto his wife" (Gen. 2:24; see also Mt. 19:5).God made man a woman, not another man. For women to cohabit with women and men with men is against nature. The word "nature" (Greek — "phusis") is used in several ways in the New Testament. Thayer says in such a passage as Eph.
2:3 it means "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature" and in such a passageas 1 Cor. 11:14 "natural sense, native conviction orknowledge. . .the native sense of propriety." However when the Holy Spirit said some women did changethe " natural use into that which is against nature" (Rom. 1:26) and that men were "leaving the naturaluse of the woman" (Rom. 1:27), they were leaving "the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opp. to what is monstrous, abnormal,perverse. . .that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Ro. 1:26" (Thayer, pages 660-661).Vine says "the regular laws or order of nature, Rom.1:26" (Vol. 3, page 103).
Homosexuality (or lesbianism) is not a sickness butrather a sin against nature. Those guilty cannot besaved unless they repent (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:1921).
"Pornography has become as American as applepie, Mom, and the Fourth of July. It is now everywhere." 1. What a contrast to only a few yearsago when pornography was suppressed and was the preoccupation of only a few disturbed individuals.
The controversy rages as to what constitutes pornography and how much censorship should be imposed. The highest courts have had difficulty in defining pornography that is uniform and which conforms to the constitution of the United States. However, for the Christian, he should not have any difficulty in identifying pornography and determining what his attitude should be toward it. God has spoken plainly on the matter, which we will get to,shortly.
Webster defines pornography, "A depiction (as inwriting or painting) of licentiousness or lewdness: aportrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexualexcitement." The American Heritage Dictionary states, "Writing, graphic, or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings."Pornography is from Greek derivation. Porno means filthy or dirty and graphos means writing. Originally,it meant to write of or about harlots in order to arouse a man's lust so that he would consort with one. Today, however, it means to evoke a sexual response, lascivious in nature, by various forms of communication, such as erotic books, pictures, movies, etc.
Dimensions of Pornography
America has been bombarded on a massive scale with pornography. A Chicago alderman, who is also aCatholic priest, said, "Our society has outdone Sodom and Gomorrah, thanks to printing presses and color photography."2
Senator Margaret Chase Smith wrote, "Consider Los Angeles, which now produces and exhibits somuch live, printed and filmed filth that a police authority recently dubbed it 'the pornography capitalof the world.' . . . .In one particularly ripe section ofHollywood, an area of less then 4 1/2 square miles, a reporter recently counted 74 such bars, bookstores, peep-show arcades and theaters, all pandering to theworst in public taste.
"New York City and San Francisco also rank as large-scale producers and exhibitors of filth. Washington D.C., follows close behind. The nation'scapital now boasts 37 'adult' bookstores (90 percentof which feature peep-show machines), eight movietheaters specializing in X-rated shows, and 15 toplessbars.............. The picture is increasingly similar in smaller cities."3
The rapid spread and growth of pornography givesus a gauge of the moral degeneracy of the Americanpeople. If there were no market, there would be no pornography. But our society likes to revel in lust, sothe pornocrats are exploiting human failures and weaknesses and pandering the sick (sadists, masochists).
James K. Barrett, a former Mafia operative andFBI undercover man, wrote in Reader's Digest, Nov.,1973, that smut was a billion-a-year operation for theMafia. "The Mob exacts its take every step of the way. . . at manufacture, at distribution and during retail operation of the machines" (peep-show machines, wew), he said.
To further show how lucrative pornography is, themovie, "Man and Wife," cost $32,000 to produce andgrossed $4,500,000. The movie, "Deep Throat," reputedly cost $25,000 and earned over $3,000,000.The production, "Oh! Calcutta!," being staged in anold burlesque house in New York with the performersalmost entirely in the nude and all forms of sexuality,attracted large crowds month after month. Theywaited in long lines, seeking tickets for as much as$25.00 each.
Playboy, the magazine for those who like sophisticated porno, made Hugh Hefner, its publisher, a millionaire. Millions of copies are soldper issue. Other magazines, such as Hustler, got intothe racket and are doing well, financially, too.
Neighbor, pornography is indeed a gigantic operation. These purveyors and advocates of smutare endeavoring to thrust it upon us whether we wantit or not. We are told it is good for us, that we are more healthy with it than we are without it. Psychology Today Magazine said it may have a salutary effect. Some tell us it can save marriages, prevent sexual crimes and liberate us from sexual hang-ups. Phooey!! The following will show the dangers and pitfalls of hardcore pornography.
Effects of Pornography
In 1967, Congress, recognizing the perils of pornography, established the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Its task was to study theproblem and recommend how to deal effectivelywith the matter. Three years and two million dollarslater, a majority (12 of 18) of the Commission recommended repealing all laws that restrict obscenematerials from adults and that even children be permitted all but pictorial pornography. Many Congressmen were appalled and repudiated the Commission's finding.
Charles H. Keating, Jr., a Cincinnati lawyer on thecommission, said the report was incompetent and biased. He stated, "(1) The Commission conducted meaningless experiments of questionable ethical nature. (2) The Commission held no meaningful public hearings, and by and large reported only scientific 'facts' that supported its preconceivednotions. (3) The Commission unduly rushed into itsfinal report." 4 He also said in the same article thatthe Commission majority chose to ignore a number ofresults of its own studies which showed ill effects of smut. In my estimation, the Commission's report should be taken with a "grain of salt."
Under Editorials, Christianity Today, Oct. 23,1970, the editor quoted Keating as saying, "To saythat pornography has no effect is patently ridiculous.I submit that if pornography does not affect a person that person has a problem." Mr. Keating knows human nature, something the majority of the Commission obviously does not know.
Psychology Today, Dec, 1970, reported, "We recently completed a research project that strongly indicates that these fears (fears of erotic materials twisting young minds, leading to depravity and encouraging sexual crimes) are groundless, and thatsome exposure to pornography may be salutary."
However, Gladys Denny Shultz, a professionalwriter, interviewed sex offenders in Atascadero StateHospital of Calif, where the experiment reported inPsychology Today was run. (Psychologists used 60 ofthe patients for their test and matched these with 62male Caucasians of the Los Angeles area.) Mrs.Shultz also interviewed inmates at Waupun Prison inWisconsin. She gave a different picture than the one Psychology Today gave. She said that about half ofthe men, the better educated, denied that pornography had anything to do with their crimes.But those who claimed they were affected,reported, "You want to practice what you've beenreading." "The prevalence of sex material definitelymakes it harder for men with a sex problem becauseit gives them a distorted impression of women andof the relations between men and women." Mrs. Shultz went on to say that this explanation with onlyslight variations, was given her by several other sexoffenders. 5
Dr. Victor B. Cline, a University of Utah psychologist, taking issue with the Commission's report, said, "We are not suggesting that pathological experiences in the family or elsewhere inthe environment may not be significant contributors to sexual deviations, crime, delinquency, or other assorted ills, but pornography should be considered acausal instigator. "6 Dr. Cline cited, among other things, reports of 254 psychotherapists of cases where pornography was found to be an instigator orcontributor to a sex crime or other antisocial acts. I quote Dr. Cline to show that Psychology Today is not to be taken as law and gospel, that even psychologists disagree on the issue.
Alexander M. Bickel, Professor of Law and LegalHistory, Yale university Law School, said, "What it (obscenity, wew) does produce is a moral atmosphere,and the moral atmosphere is the ultimate regulatorof conduct. If something can be said, if it can be shown, if it is obviously permitted by society, thenthat society begins to think it is do-able. Deviance aside, we all tend to act within the range of what wethink is tolerated by our society. " 7. If Dr. Bickel's observation is true, and I believe it is, then we need to have strict control and censorship in our communities, yea our society, or eventuallypornography will have an adverse effect on the greatmajority of us.
Page 19
Perry Cotham, professor at David LipscombCollege, Nashville, wrote that pornography has fourmajor effects. (1) It offends the right of privacy and man's sense of individuality. (2) It is diametrically opposed to the Christ-like attitudes we are expected to possess. (3) It degrades and dishonors human dignity. (4) It has a deleterious effect upon groupunits in society, such as homes, schools, churches,yea, society as a whole. 8
Ladies and gentlemen, whether it be physically, morally, spiritually, socially, or psychologically,pornography has no redeeming value. The only oneswho profit from this moral filth and slime are theMafia and other moral degenerates who are financially exploiting human frailties. But their end will be according to their works. Those who sow to theflesh shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal. 6:8).
The Christian and Pornography
The Christian is regulated by the Word of God when it comes to the consideration of pornography orany other subject. His position on the matter shouldbe just as narrow or broad as God allows him. It isnot a question of what the Supreme Court says or psychologists or anthropologists say, but what doesGod say.
God is most explicit about this issue in Col. 3:5-6.The verses state, "Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication,uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness,which is idolatry; for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience" (ASV).
There are three words in the preceding text thatare related to our study. They are: (1) Uncleanness (akatharsia). It means "the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living" (Thayer). (2) Passion (pathos). The Greek scholars tell us this word means erotic and depraved passion. It is the diseased condition of the heart that produces lewd acts. (3) Desire (epithumia). This is modified by the word, "evil." Thayer says this is "desire for what is forbidden, lust." It includes the whole world of active lust and desires (Trench). All three words, asthey are used in this text, depict pornography exactly,and verse 6 shows what God will do to those who are guilty.
In Gal. 5:19, and other passages, God vehementlydenounces the sin of lasciviousness (aselgeia). God says that those guilty of it cannot go to heaven. Thayer defines the word "aselgeia" to mean, "unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence. . . .wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females." As you can see, lasciviousness embracesevery aspect of pornography.
Christians are the salt of the earth and the light ofthe world (Mt. 5:13-16). They are to wield a savoryinfluence on society and point mankind to high and noble principles. Pornographic material, therefore,has no place in the life of a Christian.
The child of God's to think on things that arepure, lovely, etc. (Phil. 4:8). His mind has been renewed, having put on the new man which is created in righteousness and true holiness (of. Eph. 4:17-24).He is to have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph.5:11).
Conclusion
"If we indulge pornography, and do not allow censorship to restrict it, our society at best will become more coarse, brutal, anxious, indifferent, de-individualized, hedonistic; at worst its ethos will disintegrate altogether. "9"Citizens can sit back, do nothing and let the moral bankruptcy continue. Or they can join thecrusade to stop the flood of pornography—at thistime when there is such desperate need for enlightened;intelligent control of the poisons that threaten us andthe generations to follow. "10 Footnotes
- PTA Magazine, Oct., 1973.
- U.S. News & World Report, May 7, 1973.
- Reader's Digest, Oct., 1972.
- Ibid., Jan., 1971.
- Ibid., July, 1971.
- Intellect, Jan., 1975.
- Reader's Digest, Feb., 1974.
- Obscenity, Pornography & Censorship, pp. 54-78.
- The Case Against Pornography, p. 168.
- Reader's Digest, Jan., 1971.