It’s weird how tunnel-vision can limit our knowledge of the online world. There are vast swaths of the Internet I’ve never seen. Today I noticed an inbound link from “Reflections by Alessandra,” who praised as “beautiful . . . must read” something I’d written.
Alessandra’s blog seems to have an almost monomaniacal focus on fighting the gay agenda and, noticeably, she hasn’t ceded an inch of her conservative position in more than nine years. This may explain why she hasn’t gotten much notice from the conservative blogosphere, which has been in strategic retreat for the past decade. Besieged by clamorous activists, even many Christian conservatives — concerned with being “relevant” and maintaining their political influence — have quietly backed away from sound teaching.
Near the end of the post linking to my post, Alessandra linked to a short item she wrote in 2004, praising the complementarity of the sexes as something “sacred and beautiful,” which is in fact the orthodox and traditional biblical teaching on the subject:
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Notice that the Pharisees were, as always, trying to trap Jesus, hoping to catch him saying something heterodox or blasphemous and, as always, Jesus thwarted their purpose by his divine understanding. And here they thought they had him trapped:
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
This teaching was rather shocking and has, I think, been somewhat misinterpreted. Even Jesus’s disciples were dumbfounded:
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Eunuchs? Why is Jesus talking about eunuchs here? You see that he understood that the vast majority of people would be mystified by his answer. He often spoke in parables, the significance of which were only apparent after his death and resurrection, and turning his teachings into an actual church — establishing a clear theology and governing principles — was a struggle for his disciples.
The Egyptian theologian Origen rather infamously took Jesus’s words about eunuchs quite literally, but more orthodox teachers have viewed Matthew 19:12 as relating to clerical celibacy and an ascetic rejection of pleasure, forsaking the ordinary companionship of marriage in order to concentrate on “the kingdom of heaven.”
That this teaching could be misunderstood, and did in fact soon give rise to heretical schisms, can be seen in many of the writings of Paul, who had to condemn various teachers who seemed to believe that Christianity should be tolerant of fornication or, conversely, should reject even married sex as sinful:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. . . . For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Notice that Paul writes this in reply to questions from church members at Corinth where, we see in Chapter 1, divisions had arisen in the early congregation, with “contentions” among the followers of various local teachers. Some of these were evidently demanding celibacy of their followers, and Paul — evidently a widower who had not remarried — was in favor of celibacy for those such as himself, as being relieved of the necessity to provide for a household enabled him to travel and preach without secular concerns.
Yet Paul certainly did not require celibacy and, in fact, saw that it was best for Christians to marry “to avoid fornication.” This rather negative appraisal lacks the beauty of Jesus’s “one flesh” teaching, but Paul was dealing with a different problem, and one that persisted, as we see in his warning to Timothy:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
What Paul condemns as “doctrines of devils . . . forbidding to marry” may have referred to the earliest stirrings of the counterfeit known as gnosticism, but the early centuries of church history are so crowded with heresies it is difficult to know exactly what Paul had in mind. We can perhaps best understand the context by noticing that Paul also warns Timothy also to avoid “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”
By “science falsely so called,” Paul refers to Greco-Roman philosophical teachings about the nature of man and the universe which, as we now know, was far more imperfect than anyone then realized. We know from Acts 17 that Paul had encountered pagan secular teachers — Epicureans and Stoics named specifically among them — and condemned their beliefs as “too superstitious.”
Examining the history of early Christian heresies, we see that in many cases the heretics were trying to define the nature of God according to the categories supplied by the Greco-Roman philosophers, and this “science falsely so called” was simply inadequate to the task.
The nature of God, and God’s will for mankind, are subjects that any Christian must approach with humility, knowing that “we see through a glass, darkly.” The infinite and eternal nature of God is beyond mortal understanding, and we should be hesitant to proclaim that we know anything about God’s will that cannot be supported by an orthodox reading of Scripture. At the same time, however, where scriptural teaching is both clear and abundant, we should not hesitate to condemn heresy, lest these “doctrines of devils” take root and begin overgrowing Gospel truth like poisonous weeds.
All of the preceding exegesis has been preamble, therefore, to reiterating the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual behavior:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Now I pause here, to point out the underlying theological doctrine. Paul is here condemning pagan idolatry, which “served the creature more than the Creator.” It is this sin — the rejection of God — which led men to thinking themselves so “wise” in secular knowledge that they could reject the created order in favor of their own personal beliefs. Remember, Paul was writing this to the early Christian church at Rome, which included not only Jewish converts, but also Gentiles, including certain servants in the imperial court and even wealthy Romans from aristocratic families.
Paul was saying that even to the pagan Gentiles, who had no knowledge of the monotheistic teachings of the Hebrews, the truth of the created order was apparent in nature, so that even those who knew nothing of the Ten Commandments were “without excuse” for rejecting the reality of God’s existence, and of the basic moral law, that they could perceive in everyday life. Instead, full of self-regard, the supposedly civilized Romans embraced idolatry and in punishment for that rejection of God were surrendered to their own “vile affections.”
Cause and effect are important to understand here: The homosexual behavior Paul describes is not the cause of condemnation, but rather the effect of condemnation — a very difficult thing for us to understand in the 21st century, as we are once again confused on account of “science falsely so called,” as decades of allegedly scientific teaching about the nature of sexuality have confused many. But I’ll leave off that thought to continue with Paul’s memorable condemnation of first-century Rome:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Sometimes I like to point out to my children how “disobedient to parents” is tucked into this grocery list of evil that Paul provides to condemn the Romans as “worthy of death.” Kids today . . .
What we see here is that, among all the sinfulness that characterized imperial Rome, Paul made a point of highlighting homosexuality, but not to the exclusion of other widespread evils. Rather, Paul cited the “uncleanness” of their “vile affections” — terms that are analogous to what the Old Testament condemns as “abominations” — as characteristic symptoms of their amoral decadence.
This brings us back, then, to the “sacred and beautiful” qualities that Alessandra saw in the natural complementarity of the “one flesh” union between man and woman.
This is not something which requires biblical study to appreciate. Rather, as Paul declared to the Romans, “that which may be known of God is manifest . . . the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” There is a natural order in creation, and from this order anyone can perceive, even without benefit of religious teaching, the existence of the Creator, and may seek to live in accordance with the Creator’s will.
How, then, has America gone so far astray that a nation once so eminently Christian in its culture has been overtaken by decadence?
My theory is this: In the past century, the intellectual quality of Christian clergy has markedly declined, and the assaults of modernism have not been met by the most persuasive rhetoric either from the pulpit, or in the writings of Christian leaders.
As a result, Christianity has suffered a loss of prestige, and this has resulted in a demoralization of believers who, knowing what the Bible declares as truth, are embarrassed that biblical truth does not have more intelligent, articulate and charismatic spokesmen.
Christians have no one to blame for this but themselves. If a young man nowadays shows exceptional intelligence, his parents do not say, “Oh, you should go to seminary and become a preacher.” No, he must go to Harvard or Yale and become a lawyer, or pursue some other elite education and secular career so he can make lots of money.
Promising young people who, in an earlier era, may have pursued a calling in Christian ministry are instead diverted to worldly occupations, and the caliber of clergy has declined toward mediocrity. This, by the way, is what explains the so-called “mega-church” phenomenon among Protestant evangelicals. Whereas a few decades ago, good preachers were common enough that a single medium-sized town might have a dozen or more ministers, each with his own congregation of a few hundred members, nowadays good preaching has become so rare that, if any really talented minister turns up in a community, his congregation will swell to many thousands.
Unless and until this trend is reversed, until the intellectual quality of Christian clergy improves, until some latter-day Billy Graham emerges to lead a revival that restores the morale of the church, I don’t know what can be done to halt the secular tendency toward decadence that is now becoming more evident every day.
That many Christian conservatives are apparently willing to accommodate this tendency, to retreat from Gospel truth rather than to hold the orthodox position in spite of the prevailing winds of decadence, is discouraging in the extreme.
We can draw inspiration from the example of Alessandra who, as General Bee said of Jackson at Manassas, stands there like a stone wall: “Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer!”
Courage, Alessandra: ‘Let Us Determine to Die Here, and We Will Conquer!’ http://t.co/UWWSbAcdr9 #news #conservative #marriage #gays
Courage, Alessandra: ‘Let Us Determine to Die Here, and We Will Conquer!’ http://t.co/xRd02n8FS6
Remarkable writing about a difficult subject. Thank you! One question – How does “Rule 5” fit in with your theory, since its purpose is to promote fornication, either in the mind or in the flesh.
Have you actually read the original description of “Rule 5”? The first point — “Everybody Loves a Pretty Girl” — is obvious enough. The second point is that “all politics, all the time” becomes tedious, so that some bit of fun or celebrity news to break the monotony is welcome. Point three — “Sex sells” — is simply an acknowledgement of human nature. Point four, “feminism sucks,” is a self-evident truth.
That “Rule 5” has at times been misunderstood in various ways, I admit. That “its purpose is to promote fornication,” I deny. Your misunderstanding is your problem, not mine.
My problem is how to make this blog successful, which I have done, or else I would not still be here, after more than five years and more than 15 million page-views, to be able to send traffic to Alessandra’s blog and to defend truth against error. If you wish to go haunt a puritanical bluenose Web site, no one is stopping you.
The story was told in recent news of a (I think) South American model, absolutely beautiful, who professes to be a Christian yet is looking forward to doing a spread in Playboy or some similar men’s magazine. As best I recall, she either ignored or downplayed the fact that the predominant purpose of all such magazines is to inspire lust, given Christ’s explicit warning of what lust equated to. Instead (again, as best I recall) she focused on *her* motivation for posing.
I don’t really have a point with bringing this up. The comment above just reminded me of it.
She’s entitled to her opinion.
I’m entitled to think she’s wrong.
She’s true to herself though, and I can respect that.
Consequences for actions. How much the progressive mind seeks to deny and downplay that subject. Homosexuality and all manner of sexual excess are the result of denying God in one’s heart. When we reject our Creator we open the door to sin and the terrible consequences of sin.
I agree completely with your evaluation of our recent century long dumbing down of Christian clergy and religious (Nuns and Brothers), a consequence of greed and overall descent into sinfulness.
I do enjoy seeing people point out what so many seem to misunderstand: homosexuality is not a graver sin than any other in Scripture…leastways, no one could make a watertight case that it is. What it DOES do is demonstrate how far mankind can debase itself when, as RSM pointed out, God is wholly forsaken and, in turn, forsakes man. At that point, outraged nature stands in mute witness against man’s sin.
But what’s an even more ominous sign of the times is that so many WITHIN CHRISTENDOM, who may not partake of sodomy themselves, still heartily approve of it, per Romans ch. 1. These are the same hypocrites who possess “a form [facade] of godliness but deny its power.” That’s exactly where we are now, and we are told to mark this precise point in mankind’s slide as a sure sign the last days have arrived (2 Timothy 3).
I’ve actually suggested to both of my boys that the priesthood is an excellent choice for them but when I make such a suggestion I’m often told they must wait for a calling.
Like any person of Sicilian ancestry I want grandchildren from married sons but I’d happily accept a pair of priests. I bet both of em would be good ones too
RSM,
You should have a look at Ann Barnhardt from time to time also. She has a new website with many of the archives of her older commentaries included: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
Cheers,
TR
I’m not sure “modernism” is the problem with the Church today, as much as Post Modernism, which seeks to deconstruct all the “old verities.” There is no question it has sneaked into seminaries as wolf in sheep’s clothing and has led whole denominations to the edge of the Abyss. I once had a discussion about the ordination of a practicing homosexual cleric in a mainstream protestant denomination with one who was to vote on the ordination. My simple question, which was never answered BTW, was “is it sin?” Oh, there was much talk of God’s love, etc. but no answer to a very direct question. The reason for that is simple: A “yes” answer means that the Church is advocating the open practice of sin. That cannot be particularly pleasing to the Creator. See, millstone, neck, ocean; some assembly required.
As for Science!, I thought St. Charles of Darwin, taught us that survival of the species was the pinnacle of evolutionary success. Try as I might, I fail to see how gay behavior is a good evolutionary strategy.
Excellent post. Thank you.
As a pastor of my acquaintance once said, “it’s not the first look at the pretty girl that’s the problem. It’s the second and every one after that.”
That was an excellent essay and I have to say your knowledge of New Testament context is really impressive. Aside from Christ himself St. Paul is clearly the most compelling figure in the NT. He was a very astute student of human nature.
The reason this is the topic of the day is that gays are ever in your face. I was at a library in Tucson the other day and their was a painted lady tranny batting it’s eyes at people. Today I saw two lesbos pawing each other in a supermarket. If we fail to call this “normal” then we’re haters
I love Allesandra and her blog!
I discovered her blog (among many, many other interesting things) here at TOM, and I think it’s so kind for our Peerless Leader here to give her a well deserved nod!
Hi Robert! No wonder I got a high number of hits coming from your blog! 🙂
Thanks for the lovely mention and how nice that you noticed that in my view, there’s nothing, absolutely nothing to cede when it comes to this utterly misleading and harmful homosexual/liberal agenda.
Quite on the contrary, truth, ethics, and science are on our side. Social conservatives are the keepers of our most important values regarding sexuality and relationships. We cannot ever let go; we cannot slide into the mire, pushed by this barrage of liberal propaganda that normalizes and glorifies everything related to dysfunctional and perverted sexualities.
There’s no ground to be ceded in the least; it only needs to be pushed back and cultivated anew. Revealing the hypocrisy and the falsity of liberals and their sexuality agenda is key. Along with providing people with information about the real harm that it is being done in the name of “progress and tolerance and acceptance.” As good as that may sound, there is a profound difference between the narrative and reality.
The message that needs to disseminated in society is: you have psychological and/or ethical problems in the area of sexuality and relationships (homosexuality, pedophilia, porn, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, etc.), you are responsible for investigating them and resolving them.
Normalizing such dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors brings great destruction to the very cornerstone of society: our most intimate and our family relationships.
There is nothing more pathetic than our current liberals screaming that either everyone sticks their heads in the sand or applauds every type of dysfunctional sexuality problem in society, or they will fly into a tirade and call you a hater, bigot, and Nazi, move to destroy your career, and silence you.
Socons cannot shy away or cower when confronted by such an assault. The Vichy analogy you brought up recently is too perfect. The more socons cower or cede, the more they will pay.
This is why good, snappy, with-it communicators but who are also knowledgeable like yourself are so important in this fight.
And there is nothing less at stake than our very essence of society itself.
This!
See Matthew 13:24-30. There are people in the Church that are not Christians. These will be dealt with in the end.
Thank you! There is so much that needs to be addressed and written about…
I agree with both you and Stacy on the dumbing-down of the Clergy, which is why I have such deeply fond memories of Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
No species needs every member to procreate to continue it. Gay behavior might not be an evolutionary strategy for a specific person, but it doesn’t detract from a broader goal of the species.
All-out nuclear war is less a threat to our “species” than the normalisation of homosexuality!
ah…yea….
Beware, people: tracy has a tendancy to hijack comment threads*. She expresses a willingness to debate, but, in fact, she’s just an employee of The Argument Clinic.
See here:
http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=50840
As Dicentra responded to tracy at one point over at Protein Wisdom:
Source: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comment-1014944
Getting off topic Bob?
I’m warning my friends and acquaintances here about your tedious tactics.
You’re the worst kind of commentator: you’re a First-Class Bore.
How kind of you. I’ve never been about being thought well of, just never being forgotten.
Simply the fact that you quoted those particular scriptures, which had landed Christian ministers in jail, and is considered a hate crime in Canada and several places in the US of A – BRAVO sir!!! I shall be checking out Miss Alessandra’s site.
She’s one of the Boudica’s of The Rightosphere.
In answer to your question, while a species may survive if not all individuals procreate, the specific genetic material unique to an individual which may be necessary for natural selection to work its magic, is not passed on. I stand by my comment. If you’re a materialist, it’s not good strategy for either the species or the individual.
Oh, I remember.
And one can argue that a beneficial gene will present itself numerous times in a large enough population.
…and your argument suggests that it is beneficial that ALL members of a species procreate, and that any failure to do so is a loss to the entire species….
I’ve popped over and read a number of your entries. Alas, because I refuse to register for stuff, I can’t comment. Nonetheless, I appreciate you’re keeping the faith.
As was pointed out at Protein Wisdom, you’re being deliberately obtuse. I made no such argument, and you know it. You also know that removing genetic material from the species because individuals do not procreate has the very real potential to harm the entire species. Otherwise, I’d stop sending money to the World Wildlife Fund.
There is a natural order in creation, and from this order anyone can perceive, even without benefit of religious teaching, the existence of the Creator, and may seek to live in accordance with the Creator’s will.
Later, he refers to “conscience”, which is universal to man. And progressives have been stomping on it since Eve.
Are you done being a quite sad example of a 3rd rate, amateurish assclown? Why is it we get all the 4th stringers on weekends? Too boring, the ennui is too great to even muster up some snark or mockery.
You are as inconsequential as the drone of a mosquito …
As do I.
and yet you bothered….
Sorry, but I know of no other way to interpret: “You also know that removing genetic material from the species because
individuals do not procreate has the very real potential to harm the
entire species.” other than as a statement that is incumbent upon all to ensure their genetic material be passed on…for the good of the species.
Ignore me, please. Alternate points of view obviously distress people – this is a thread about steadfastness.
Courage, Alessandra: ‘Let Us Determine to Die Here, and We Will Conquer!’ http://t.co/VZletINEam #Marriage Via @RSMcCain
Unless the broader goal of the species is to live noble , decent lives.
Tracy who?
Thanks! More to come! 🙂
A challenging sermon, particularly the final section. Your theory makes a great deal of sense.
Your words reminded me of the book by Prof. David Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary — No Place for Truth — about the evangelical movement’s neglect of theology. (And that book is about 20 years old.) Advanced seminary degrees had more in common with MBAs than PhDs. A D.Min. is a managerial degree, not a theological degree.
I’m also reminded of this clarion call — the classic hymn “Rise Up, O Men of God,” reimagined by guitar virtuoso Phil Keaggy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8nx_VAtQ7o
Ok, then…
Hardly … yawn …