Absurd, right? Especially at the point of a gun.
By definition, governments and their agencies, cannot show compassion. That's because they fund their activities — benevolent or not — through the threat of force. If you don't pay your taxes, terrible things happen to you, such as having to wait on hold, stand in line, talk to IRS agents, and go to jail.
If I take YOUR money by force, and give it to the next guy, who's showing compassion? Answer: NO ONE. Sorry, Robin Hood.
Compassion cannot be coerced.
Compassion cannot be legislated.
Compassion cannot be charged to someone else's credit card.
Please notice I have NOT said that our government should get out of the business of doing good for people. Of course not. Our federal government exists, in part, "to promote the general welfare..." So, please don't leave a comment about how I want to throw impoverished children onto the streets. I am simply arguing that NOBODY gets "compassion points" for anything governments do.
Nor am I suggesting that all individuals employed by our federal government are heartless bureaucrats. Some are. Most aren't. When I processed the 501(c)3 application (tax-exempt recognition) for my Chicago church at the U.S. Post Office in downtown Chicago, I met with a most wonderful, kind-hearted, compassionate, federal government minion. Yes, they're out there.
But, as personable and compassionate as she was individually, she still followed the letter of the government's laws.
The "passion" part of the word refers to emotion, and governance mixes with emotion as well as Kanye West with Taylor Swift. The government does NOT feel your pain, presidential claims to the contrary notwithstanding. In "Men in Black" Tommy Lee Jones deadpans the camera and says, "We're the federal government, ma'am. We have no sense of humor." Right. And no compassion either.
Can the current health care debate be about compassion as long as it is about government, too?
Can we delegate compassion to a soulless bureaucracy?
You can't shift the burden your compassion to the government. Nor can you pat yourself on the back for voting for a candidate because his/her policies are "more compassionate." THEY'RE SPENDING SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY ACQUIRED THROUGH TAXATION! IT'S NOT COMPASSION! Never has been, never will be.
"Compassionate conservatism?" No such thing; not unless compassion is a marketable commodity. "Compassionate liberalism?" No such thing; not unless feelings of mercy can be coerced by government regulation. A "compassionate" government is inevitably dysfunctional; governments run by laws, not feelings, and no amount of legislation can codify compassion. Good governance is dispassionate.
Can institutions weave compassion into their core values? Yes. They can and should. But that compassion ceases the instant the institution's funding becomes coercive. Samaritan's Purse, Bongolo Hospital, most churches, and other eleemosynary organizations... compassionate institutions all. Yes, compassion can be institutionalized, but NOT by government or any other coercive agency.
But mostly, it's personal.
Compassion is one man taking off his shoes and handing them to a neighbor who has none. Compassion is a woman pounding nails for Habitat for Humanity. Compassion is kids pulling money out of their piggy-banks for medical missions or literacy or to give a Happy Meal to a family on the streets. It is putting your arm around a hurting friend and stumbling through a prayer. It is cooking meals for new moms, and stopping to put on a spare for a senior citizen. It is the tenderness of heart that results in joyful self-sacrifice to meet another's needs. It is person to person and neighbor to neighbor.
It doesn't kick the cost down the road to our neighbors or their children.
It isn't funded by someone else's dime.
Jesus volunteered for the Cross. He didn't shift the burden. He didn't agitate the Roman government to create a compassionate society. He accepted the full weight of God's love for our needy race. He cared. He came. He gave. He paid.
That's compassion.
They administer the beneficence of their protection through regulations so convoluted no two reasonable people could possibly agree on their interpretation.
Ask to see a a superior even once and you're screwed forever. The scowl on the functionary's face tells you so. Unelected. Serving for life. Gatekeepers of the blessings of power and permission. You will make this person your friend, or your trash will never be collected again.
Yes, bureaucracy is the foundation of tyranny.
Everyday life devolves from the happy exercise of liberty into the monotonous pursuit of permission. Permission from a person who knew somebody who knew somebody and got a job — the primary skill of which is knowing how to ink a stamp pad — and is thus qualified to have a say in your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
It's not the Tyrant per se that alienates your inalienable rights. It's the bureaucrat that won't let you (or will charge you prohibitive "fees" to): fell a tree, build a deck, pave a driveway, dig a well, light a fireplace, obtain a license, expand a business, add a drive-through, build a warehouse, sing a Christmas carol, or preach the gospel. In vast stretches of modern, so-called civilization you must obtain a "license" to preach Jesus. In China you must obtain a license to conceive a second child.
The Tyrant is so far removed from the scene, we may not notice his or her tyranny. We may deem the Tyrant a Very Nice Person. The Tyrant never stamped "Denied" across our papers. We do not yet feel the need to throw off his or her shackles. It's that damn clerk down at the permit office that drives us nuts. Remember, Haiti called its dictators "Papa."
In their review of FA Hayek's classic, The Road to Serfdom (1944), the Mises Institute writes:
What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship–and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.
Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.
Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.*
The tyranny of bureaucracy comes on like the frog in the kettle. We lose our freedoms almost imperceptibly. By the time we realize it, it's too late.
Fauci is the epitome of bureaucrats. Unelected, unaccountable, un-auditable, untouchable for life. The Alphabet Soup of Federal Agencies, State Agencies, along with all those little Czar's down at the county office, will either bankrupt you or drive you to suicide while trying to keep you safe.
You will stand in line and you will learn to love it.
"Drop 'em and bend over."
Welcome to the New World Order.
[*Full review here.]
It's about protecting your own soul from harm.
By playing fast and loose with sexuality, our culture has trapped itself in a bondage it never saw coming: a weakened ability to form lasting bonds of affection.
God designed you for bonding — to form emotional/spiritual attachments that bring a sense of love, acceptance, knowing, camaraderie, and support into your life. Dogs are world-champion bonders. They bond through touch, play, sight, sound, proximity, smell. What self-respecting canine wouldn't jump at the chance to sleep on his best-friend's dirty socks? Every time you walk in the door, there's your mutt, beside himself with joy, renewing the bond, and ensuring your friendship stays tight.
Anyone who's lost a dog knows the pain of that broken bond.
Bonds that form slowly go deepest. The Bible says, "But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection [spiritual maturity]" (Colossians 3:14, NKJV). This well-bonded love comes last. It's the capstone of all other virtues. A mature bond forms last, at the end of a long process, and it holds the tightest. Those old married couples who still hold hands show the power of a lifetime bond. They've been through everything. They've argued their arguments. They've fought over money and kids and open toilet seats. Their bond has prevailed, for better or worse. To see a well-bonded couple like this is to see humanity's finest hour. The bond has aged to ripe perfection. Slowly. Over time.
I am a grace-guy. I'm all for personal liberty under the wide open skies of amazing grace. I'm a do-what-you-want, follow your heart, walk with God and be free kind of guy. I continually fight my urge to judge others. So I'm not writing to judge or damn anybody here. I'm writing to encourage you — and the people I pastor — to deeper dimensions of grace, especially in this arena of sexual bonding.
Movies and books like Fifty Shades of Grey will not only damage your bond, they will damage your ABILITY to bond.
Every time you make and then break a bond, it's harder to bond the next time. Like repeatedly attaching, and then ripping off, a bandage, sooner or later, the thing stops sticking. The trauma of repeatedly tearing apart bonds can result in attachment disorders, isolation, intimacy problems, and all kinds of heart-breaking patterns. You cross legitimate boundaries, feel the pain of it, excuse yourself, and ultimately become numb to it. You need ever-increasing stimulation for ever-diminishing returns. It takes more effort to achieve less satisfaction. Once you tear down the boundaries that protect your bond, you become vulnerable. You open yourself to wounds. You invite pain.
Protect your heart.
Protect your spouse's heart. If you're single, protect your own heart, and that of the person you or the other might someday marry.
You've been given this precious machinery of bonding. You possess this miraculous engine of attachment. Don't break it. Don't numb it.
The acts related to physical intimacy produce life's fastest bonds. In God's design, you bond mentally and emotionally first, then get to the chapel and get married, and then consummate your bond physically.
Why that order? Because God loves you too much to let you run down paths that will break your heart. Physical bonding works best in an atmosphere of exclusivity and lifetime commitment. Anything else leads to needless drama and lots of tears.
Fifty Shades of Grey is porn. Plus, it associates pain with pleasure — so it's a double whammy. It will introduce images into your mind you won't be able to erase. It will stimulate desires your spouse may not be interested in. It will cause comparisons that will only make you and your spouse feel inferior. It will judge you and your "lame" sex life as bland. It will damage your bond. It will damage your ability to maintain your bond. It will throw a wrench into that finely tuned engine of bonding that is the human spirit. It will bring other people into your marital bed through images you'll find hard to erase. It will dilute your exclusive bond with your spouse — or, to use another word — it will adulterate your bond. To adulterate wine is to water it down. To adulterate a marital bond is to water it down by bringing in any other partner, even in the imagination (Matthew 5:28).
Strong bonds require focus. Ask your dog.
The more partners you have — whether physically or mentally — the harder it's going to be to erase the others and focus on "the one."
Broken bonds haunt you.
Even imaginary ones. Some things just can't be unseen, even with God's grace. To see this movie, or to read this book, is to turn your back to grace. You lose.
Can there be healing? Yes. Without doubt. Can there be forgiveness, restoration, and rehab? Yes. God's grace is never out of reach. God's redemptive grace goes clear down to your sexuality (John 8:11). But the emotional pain of distorted sexuality is still pain. Why choose it on purpose?
Grace provides supernatural power to resist temptation. Calvary-Love offers you a better way of life. Grace offers a satisfaction the world's counterfeits can't touch.
I think the question Christians need to ask themselves is simple: Is the grace of God enough? Can I find happiness and love and all that my heart cries out for by laying hold of God's grace or not? Scripture paints a beautiful picture of a husband and wife as, "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). Heirs together — like millionaires without a care in the world. The grace of life — the most satisfying life with the most wonderful person you can imagine, as a by-product of God's amazing grace.
Fifty Shades of Grey will deface that picture with a bucket of pain disguised as guilty pleasure.
Go out to a fancy dinner instead, order a nice wine, and actually talk about things you both care about.
Or just take the dog for a nice, long walk.
3. Thank you for laughing at yourself.
Dad, the older I got, the more I have admired your sense of humor. You are a damn funny guy. Remember the time in my twenties when a group of friend drove from Chicago to Florida to hang out on beaches and visit Disneyworld? You and mom squeezed us into your home in Englewood, FL. I'll never forget that dinner the day before we were to visit Disney's Epcot Center. You kept calling it EPCOCK. Every time you said it, my friends and I smiled, and then laughed, and then cracked up. Epcock, Epcock, Epcock. Finally, you got that something was wrong. "What? What's so funny," you said. "Dad, it's EpcoT," I said. "Yeah, why, what am I saying?" you said. "You're saying EpcoCK...." We all busted out laughing, and you laughed the loudest. A couple years ago, when we brought the kids to Florida... we told them that Grampa was an elf. That you were a cute elf. My son said, "What, like Dopey?" You got such a kick out of that, and let us call you Dopey. You never took yourself so seriously that we couldn't laugh at you. You were so REAL. You never put on airs. You had this easygoing way about you. You put people at ease. You could talk with anybody. Years as a bartender made you a natural. You never pretended to be someone you weren't. Thank you.
4. Thank you for making me go to Sunday School.
I know it wasn't your thing. I know you'd drop Bob and me off at Grace Gospel Church (Elston and Bryn Mawr Aves in Chicago)... and then go buy yourself a paper, coffee, and donut, and sit in the car till we were done. But you made me go, and for that I'm grateful. I especially remember the time in high school when Bob and I stayed out late for some reason — a reason you didn't buy into — on a Saturday night. We intended to sleep in; you intended otherwise. You barged into our bedroom at 7:00, woke us up and said, "Get dressed. You're going to to church." You made sure I had biblical values instilled from childhood. Thanks for that.
5. Thank you for the courage to get baptized at age 82.
You've never been a religious guy, but you were always a man of truth. And when, at age 82, you said you wanted to come to Chicago and get baptized, I was blown away. It was one of the high points of my life as a pastor, and my great privilege, to baptize you. I now know you were doing this for us, your family. You knew your time was short, and you didn't want us to worry. Dad, you gave us an amazing gift of hope. The older I get, the more your manly humility means to me. I know you're in heaven, not because you were a good man — which you were — but because you had received a good Savior, Jesus.
6. Thanks for teaching me how to play poker.
I loved that big stack of poker chips in the caddy. Blue chips worth a quarter, red chips worth a dime, white chips worth a penny. Poker, Five card stud, Seven card stud, Blackjack. I'm not a gambler, never have been, but I'm glad I know how to play, and we had so much fun together doing that stuff. You taught us how to fish. You taught us how to put a worm on a hook. You let us taste beer and try your cigarettes. You taught us how to drive and didn't freak out like mom did (hahaha). You didn't want your church-going sons to go through life so pristine that we couldn't sit down and enjoy a few worldly pastimes. Thanks for teaching me to shuffle, deal, and hold my cards close to the vest.
7. Thank you for never complaining.
I can't remember any time you complained about the hardships of life. In these last many decades, when you struggled through 5 different cancers, countless surgeries, unimaginable pain, and the rapid loss of dignity... you never lost your DIGNITY. You never complained. You never felt sorry for yourself. You kept your humor, and pressed through huge trials. Again, you are a giant of a man to me, and I can only hope to walk in your steps as a man.
8. Thanks for making me think we were rich.
You worked two jobs to put food on the table. As a truck driver for the Enameled Steel and Sign Company (used to be on Addison, near Kimball), you braved Chicago winters and got the job done. I loved those times you brought the truck home and let us climb into the cab. I was so proud that my Daddy could drive this massive truck. Your second job was as a bartender. Actually you scheduled all the bartenders for the banquets at the Sheraton O'Hare. So after 8 hours driving a truck, you'd come home, join us for dinner at the table, get dressed, and go back to bartend on weekends. You always put bread on the table, shoes on our feet, clothes on our backs, and a miraculous pile of presents under the tree. I never once felt deprived; never once thought we were poor; never once imagined the price you paid to put bread on the table — again without complaint. Thanks for being an example. Dad, you're my role model.
9. Thanks for moving that fridge.
I remember the time you had to move a refrigerator, and you just did it. Alone. No help. I was in awe, because my dad was strong enough to move a refrigerator all by himself.
10. Thanks for sticking up for us when that neighbor accused us of smashing his Christmas lights.
I'm not saying we did or we didn't, but you told him, "I gotta stick with my sons." I never felt more secure than at that moment. Thanks for sticking with your sons and defending us from an adult making charges against us.
11. Thanks for putting family first.
Not just our immediate family, but grandmas, grandpas, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, everyone. I watched as all our family members came to you for help, and you never failed them. Money, loaning a car, painting a room, opening our home... anything anyone needed they could get from you. You blew me away with your generosity and kindness. I want to be a man like you.
12. Thanks for worrying about my eye.
One last story... when I was maybe 8 years old, I was playing pirate. I got hold of the first aide stuff, and wrapped a patch over my eye. It looked like a real injury. You came home from work and saw me. I'll never forget the look on your face. It was immediate — a look of panic. You rushed to me, took hold of me, and with fear written across your face asked what happened. Your relief was as great as your fear. In that moment, i I felt massively cared for and protected. I knew you treasured me. I knew you valued me above all else. Yes, you worried a lot. But it was because you loved a lot.
Your quiet courage during these years of battling cancer stands as a testament to your greatness. You kept your grace and your humor through it all. You never once felt sorry for yourself. You accepted your lot in life with a magnificent heart. Wow, Dad, you amaze me.
I'm sure time will expand this list. I'm already thinking of stuff I've missed. But today, on the morning after your passing, I wanted to start saying my good bye. I wanted the world to know what kind of dad I had. I wish you could have held out another couple of days. But that wish is selfish. Your examples of selflessness, generosity, humor, courage and love will be with me forever.
The world got bigger and scarier and a little less secure for me yesterday. But I'll be okay. You showed me how.
I love you Dad. I always have.
But you have always loved me more.
I'm proud to be your son. You were a great dad, a faithful husband, and a true, honest, courageous man. A great example. And my original example of an Alpha Christian.
I miss you so much already. Have fun in heaven.
See you soon.
In Proverbs 29:18, Solomon noted that when a society eliminates God and His Word, people do what they want to do with minimal nagging from their own conscience or from others around them. In contrast, "happy is He who keeps the [God's] law." In the same way that parents' rules for children are for their good (e.g., "Don't touch the stove"), God's Word is for our good always (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; Psalm 19:7-8; 119; Romans 7:12). That fact is true regarding how individuals in a society should conduct themselves sexually as well. A little-known study conducted in the early 1900s and published in 1934 lends support to that fact.
J.D. Unwin was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was no advocate for Christianity or religion. In his book, Sex and Culture, Unwin discusses the results of his study of 86 societies from over 5,000 years of history. These were selected due to the availability of the evidence that substantiated their regulations/expectations regarding sexual activity, and included various Melanesian societies as well as several African, Polynesian, Assamian, Paleo-Siberian, North American Indian, Babylonian, Athenian, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English societies. Each culture was categorized based on how strict its societal rules and expectations were concerning sexual activity, especially regarding acceptable female sexual behavior in a society. The studied societies were divided into seven classes of sexual regulation—three pre-nuptial and four post-nuptial categories. Regarding pre-marriage customs, some societies allowed (1) total sexual freedom before marriage; (2) some pre-marital activity and allowing for only "irregular or occasional" sexual activity; and (3) no sexual activity—invoking punishment or death to women who failed to remain virgins until marriage. Concerning post-nuptial allowances, some societies (1) considered polygamy acceptable as well as having no restriction on faithfulness. Neither party was "compelled to confine his or her sexual qualities to the other for his or her whole life"; (2) only considered monogamy acceptable, but again, neither party had to confine his/her sexual appetites to his/her spouse for life; (3) required wives to confine their sexual activity to their husband, but the husband could have other sexual partners through polygamous relationships (i.e., strict polygamy); and (4) required strict monogamy as the acceptable practice—where both the husband and wife were confined to each other sexually for life (pp. 341-343). Unwin's discoveries about these categories are enlightening.
According to Unwin, the "first primary law which operates in all human societies" is that "the cultural condition of any society in any geographical environment is conditioned by its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes [sexually—JM]" (p. 340). In every instance, when sexual restrictions in a society are at their highest level (i.e., strict pre-nuptial abstinence andstrict monogamy), the society inevitably progresses, and the more sexual activity is curbed in a society, the more the society progresses. When restrictions are lessened, the society inevitably stops progressing and begins to digress, ultimately disappearing if the restrictions are not again tightened. "[A] limitation of sexual opportunity [i.e., more sexual restraint in a society—JM] always is, and so far as I know always has been, accompanied by a rise in cultural condition" (p. 2). The rise occurs after the implemented rules have been in effect for "at least three generations" (p. 321). "Any extension of sexual opportunity [i.e., less sexual restraint in a society—JM] must always be the immediate cause of a cultural decline" (p. 326).
Unwin argues that the more lenient a society is in its sexual allowances, the more energy is inevitably used by that society in gratifying its sexual desires. The more strict a society is, the more that extra energy is used in expanding a society and progressing.
[P]sychological researches reveal that the placing of a compulsory check upon the sexual impulses, that is, a limitation of sexual opportunity, produces thought, reflection, and energy. Now the evidence is that a cultural advance has been caused by a factor which produces thought, reflection, and social energy...and that it occurs only when the sexual opportunity has been limited. I submit, therefore, that the limitation of the sexual opportunity must be regarded as the cause of the cultural advance.... If men and women are sexually free, their sexual desires will receive direct satisfaction; but if the sexual opportunity is limited, the impulses must be checked. Then the repressed desires will be expressed in another form.... [U]sually the tension produced by the emotional conflicts is exhibited in some form of mental and social energy, the intensity of that energy depending upon the intensity of the compulsory continence [i.e., the level of restriction placed on sexual activity—JM]. When the sexual opportunity of a society is reduced almost to a minimum, the resulting social energy produces "great accomplishments in human endeavor" and "civilization." When the compulsory continence is of a less rigorous character, lesser energy is displayed (p. 317).
Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material universe bends nature to its will. All such accomplishments as these imply the previous exertion of thought and reflection, these being necessary precursor to all human achievements (p. 315, italics in orig.).
Unwin noted that though he considers high restraint of sexual behavior to be the "immediate cause of social energy," he is content to conclude that it is the cause of social energy only in the sense of being an indispensable contributory factor; that is to say, even if other factors also are indispensable and operating, no social energy can be displayed unless the sexual opportunity is limited. Other things being equal, however, social energy will be exhibited by any society which places a compulsory limitation upon the sexual opportunity of its members. Conversely, in all cases any extension of sexual opportunity must result in a reduction of social energy. Such is the evidence from psychological research (p. 320, emp. added).
The inherent power of thought and the potential energy of the human organism can be exhibited only when the sexual impulses are controlled by the operation of social ordinances; and the amount of energy and the profundity of the thought depend upon the extent of the imitation which these ordinances impose. If the compulsory continence be great, the society will display great energy; if it be small, there will be a little energy. If there be no compulsory continence, there can be no energy; it remains potential (p. 339).
When we look at American society today, Unwin's discoveries, if true, are eerie admonitions to consider, for according to Unwin, "as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared" (p. 382, emp. added). Using modern layman terminology: unbridled cravings of any sort will tend to monopolize our mind and our time. If a society as a whole allows unbridled cravings to become widespread, then the society as a whole will have much of its mind-power and energy focused on fulfilling those lusts/addictions rather than on doing good for others and improving society. Statistics indicate that sexual anarchy rules the day in America. Pornography, adultery, divorce and remarriage, "shacking up" without even marrying (whether with one person or more than one), homosexuality, polygamy, and pedophilia are rampant in American society and are even encouraged in many cases through law, music, movies, and books. [See Apologetics Press' book Sexual Anarchy (Miller, 2006) for documentation of America's growing sexual insanity.]
Interestingly, in harmony with what a Christian would expect based on God's Word, Unwin found that absolute monogamy led to the most advanced societies. "In the records of history, indeed, there is no example of a society displaying great energy for any appreciable period unless it has been absolutely monogamous. Moreover, I do not know of a case in which an absolutely monogamous society has failed to display great energy" (p. 369, emp. added). "Those societies which have maintained the custom [of absolute monogamy—JM] for the longest period have attained the highest position in the cultural scale which the human race has yet reached" (p. 25). "Generally speaking, in the past when they began to display great energy..., human societies were absolutely monogamous.... [T]he energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as" this restriction was loosened (p. 343, emp. added).
Unwin argues that strict monogamy fosters an environment where advancement is more likely to be achieved in a society. He argues that the next rung down on the sexual regulation ladder (strict polygamy), does not lend itself to societal advancement. "An absolutely polygamous society preserves but does not increase its tradition. It does not possess the energy to adopt new ideas; it remains content with its old institutions" (p. 368, emp. added). Though admittedly he did not engage in a formal study of the subject, it is interesting to note what famous General George S. Patton observed during World War II about the North African Islamic countries (that practiced polygamy):
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).
In Matthew 19, Jesus called His audience's memory back to the beginning—when God defined marriage for mankind.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' [Genesis 1:27], and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' [Genesis 2:24]? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).
Scriptural marriage is intended by God to be comprised of one eligible man marrying one eligible woman, and the two becoming one flesh for life. Strict monogamy is the biblical definition of marriage. According to the Bible, sexual activity is good and to be encouraged in that setting (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 5; Song of Solomon). Unwin's study helps us to see at least one reason why marriage was so defined.
[NOTE: Unwin's study was obviously confined to societies in existence before the early 1900s when the study was conducted—most of which were likely isolated from significant influences by other cultures due to the state of technology before the 1900s (e.g., a lack of telephones, television, Internet, etc.), as well as natural, geographical limitations (i.e., inability to travel extensively between nations). Such a study might be more difficult today, since societies are, for the most part, not isolated, but rather, heavily influence each other. One society might be perceived to advance in contradiction to Unwin's assertions, when in actuality, its advancement was merely due to, for example, its acquisition of technology from other societies, receiving aid from other societies, etc.—practices engaged in often today. That said, eliminating many of those influences from the equation, as Unwin's study did by necessity, would logically seem to allow a more accurate assessment of the effect of sexual behavior on a society.]
REFERENCES
Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).
Unwin, J.D. (1934), Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press).
Published March 22, 2015