NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE OUR PERMISSION

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there was a code:

No motion picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done: 

(a)   When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive.

(b)   When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin. The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty.

The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided:

(a)   That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin.

(b)   That throughout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil.

(c)    That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right. 

What is this? The above is part of the motion picture code in America from 1930-1967. It was called the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America from 1922-1945. If you made a movie and wanted to show it in American theaters, you toed the mark and lived up to the Hays Code. 

Look at the words of the code: "moral standards," "evil," "sin," "goodness," "honor," "purity," "wrong," and "right." They sound quaint, absolute, and bye-gone. Yet that's the way it was back in the day in a land far, far away.

PERMISSION DENIED

So back in the day it was, "No, you do not have OUR permission to say that;" "No, you do not have OUR permission to do that;" "No, you do not have OUR permission to approve of that;"  No, you don't have OUR permission to wear that; "No, you don't have OUR permission to mock that."

The question is, who was "OUR," that is, whose permission was not granted back then, in that land far, far away? It was, perhaps, the strongest permission of them all, as far as earthly permission is concerned--it was the permission of the prevailing culture. That's why Hollywood and the arts did what they did back in the day; they didn't have the culture's permission to do otherwise. 

The culture gave it's permission to the proper use of the English language and not the coarse; the culture gave its permission to the proper behavior and not to the perverted; the culture gave its permission to approve of the good and disapprove of the bad; the culture gave its permission to proper attire; the culture gave its permission to uphold the church and those in it. The culture supported truth, justice, and the American way in that land now far, far away.

But that was back in the day. Today, the arts are the power that gives cultural permission to the coarse, the common, and the degraded. The arts give the culture permission to teenagers to be angry, sullen, and rebellious. The arts give the culture permission to devalue language to a level below coarse; the arts give the culture permission to form mobs, to destroy property, to override the freedom of speech by making heroes of those who do. Whenever we hear the coarse or see the perverted in the arts, we are seeing the giving of cultural permission to talk and act that way.

Even on the simplest level: whoever thought that we'd have to think twice before we say, "Merry Christmas"? But it's the power of cultural permission that's making us think twice. Do we have the culture's permission in this particular case and in this particular place to say "Merry Christmas"? Whoever thought we would have to think before praising our Founders like Jefferson and Washington? The culture is making us think twice. "Do we have cultural permission for such praise," we're asking ourselves.

Whoever thought that we'd have to think twice about team names such as the Washington Bullets of the NBA? They changed their name to the Washington Wizards. ( "In 1995, the owner announced he was changing the team's name because Bullets had acquired violent overtones that had made him increasingly uncomfortable over the years.") Whoever thought that the annual game between the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma would change its brand from "The Red River Shootout" to "The Red River Rivalry'? But the culture did not give its permission to anything so violent as "shootout," so away went the brand.

We may not like it, but we have to admit, no matter who you are, we're thinking twice about having the permission of the culture. That's how powerful cultural permission is. The Bible calls it "the kosmos," that is, the "world-system" a system that's organized to leave God out, and it is powerful. It carries clout and woe be to those who stand against it. 

Yet, the Lord Jesus said to us, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world (kosmos) you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world (kosmos).” Jn. 16:33

THE MOVIE MAN

They said that he came into his own as a producer, writer, and director of the 2011 movie, “The Way,” which told a story of death, faith, and family. A critic said that the movie was different--"It had no massive special effects, no parade of gore or bedroom scenes with nudity."

Back in 2011, the man who made the movie was quoted as saying, "Hollywood is a very difficult place to be earnest and be heartfelt. I'm not interested in making films that are anything but. There’s a lot of vulgarity in films. There’s a lot of violence, casual sex – things that make me uncomfortable watching – and I’m not interested in perpetuating that message.” [That sounds different.]

The movie man continues: "[My kind of film is] one that shows simple human relationships. I think we have a responsibility as artists, and if we live in that community, and we work in that community, we have a responsibility to lift it up and to raise the bar and to reject all that [mentioned above].”

His movie, "The Way," contains a subtle pro-life message, about which he says, "We give voice to the unborn, and again, that is another thing Hollywood doesn’t necessarily celebrate.” [That’s putting it mildly.]

Who is this movie man, this producer, writer, and director? Why, he's none other than the guy who played the hockey coach in "The Mighty Duck" films. So now you know the rest of the story, he's Emilio Estevez. Or do you really know the rest of the story? He's also the brother of Charlie Sheen.

THAT GUY?

Charlie Sheen? Yes, that Charlie Sheen. That Charlie Sheen who, according to reports, "has allegedly assaulted, threatened, harassed, abused, and—in one incident—shot women. Although his long history of violence toward women has been reported in the media, it seems to have taken a back seat to the actor's partying, wild lifestyle, and battles with addiction."

That Charlie Sheen who's been in and out of rehab, and by his own admission, has paid millions to blackmailers, is currently threatened with lawsuits, has suffered cluster headaches and night sweats, and has heard what he calls, "The hard letters, H, I, and V."

Yet, it was that brother America's press and people celebrated during all those years of his drugs, carousing, and rehab sessions. It was that brother who the press quoted in all his nonsensical glory. Things like: "I got tiger blood, man. My brain...fires in a way that is - I don't know, maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm." "I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." Although his words were certified nonsense, the public ate it up. They couldn't get enough of him.

It was that brother who should have been embarrassed that his father and brother got on national TV to plead with him to come to his senses and get some help. 

It was that brother that we knew all about. It was that brother who was smiling at us from the covers of one magazine after another. We saw him, whether we wanted to or not, grinning at us from too many magazine covers as we stood in the checkout lines.

THE GRIN IS GONE

It's that brother isn't smiling today. It's that brother who's grown serious; the wages of sin have caught up with him, even as he cruised through life in his own fast lane, and it's no fun anymore. The payday someday is today, tomorrow, and for the rest of his days, a fact he may not realize yet.

The other brother? Emilio hasn't had cluster headaches, night sweats, paid 10 million in blackmail, isn't addicted to drugs, hasn't made moronic statements for all to hear and read, hasn't been a complete embarrassment, isn't threatened with lawsuits, nor heard the hard letters. No ambulance has rushed him to the Los Robles Medical Center because he overdosed on cocaine and alcohol. Emilio didn't get into drugs at age 11, nor did his high school expel him at 17. Emilio didn't turn into a "crazy, chain-smoking, who-cares-about-the-consequences dervish, claiming to be fueled by 'tiger blood' and 'Adonis DNA,' waving a sword at the 'clowns' and 'trolls' who had supposedly enslaved him." (from"Vanity Fair, 2011" Mark Seal)

Why not? Because Emilio, whether he knows it or not, has lived close to what Paul calls the morality God has written in every human heart. Then, when we look at the book of Proverbs, with its admonition, "The fear of the Lord (a positive response to God) is the beginning of wisdom," we realize that one book could have saved Charlie Sheen from a life of financial, moral, and physical chaos that hasn't stopped yet.

But there's more. Assuming that neither brother is saved, we might paraphrase the jailer's question to Paul to be, "What must they do to be saved?"

First, we must recognize that both brothers are equally lost, equally, as the Bible says, "In Adam." Secondly, we must realize that Christ died for all their sins, Charlie's and Emilio's (I John 2:2). Charlie Sheen's sins were all paid for on the cross 2,000 years ago, as were Emilio's. To be saved and have the benefits of Christ's death on the cross applied to each of them, what they need to do is to trust Christ, trust Him that He is the Son of God; trust Him that His payment for their sins is finished, complete, and done; trust Him that He rose from the dead; and trust Him that He alone can save them.

"Trust Him alone" means that neither Charlie nor Emilio must beg God to save them, neither must feel sorry for their sins, neither must resolve to live for Christ, neither must put Christ on the throne of their lives, neither must  forsake their sins. That's what John 3:16 means--salvation is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone. That's what grace is--neither has to earn salvation; it's a gift.

But wait! Charlie Sheen doesn't deserve a salvation provided without cost. Surely, he must do something; he has to do something! You're right; Charlie doesn't deserve the gift of a without-cost-salvation.

Neither does Emilio. Neither do you.

THE STATUS OF THE QUO

Someone defined "status quo" as, "The mess we is in." That sounds like a more apropos definition than its literal meaning (from the Latin, meaning, "state in which").

ENTER THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER

The prestigious Pew Research Center not only researches America's attitudes toward politicians in and out of office, but also America's beliefs about spiritual matters. A couple of their recent findings of the status quo is disturbing.

HEAVEN AND HELL

In a recent study, the Pew Research Center found that 72% of us in the U. S. of A. believe in heaven and 58% of us believe in hell as literal places. OK, what's so disturbing about that? What's so disturbing is the definitions of both. The 72% who believe in heaven define it as a place “where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded.”

Hold on, Francis, it gets worse.

The Pew Group found that "The existence of heaven [with that definition] is almost universally accepted by Mormons (95%) and members of historically black Protestant denominations (93%), as well as by about eight-in-ten or more [of] evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and mainline Protestants."

We would expect such a skewed definition from the Mormons and from Roman Catholics, but from "93% of black Protestant denominations, as well as by about eight-in-ten or more [of] evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and mainline Protestants"? That's dismal.

THE BIBLE SAYS 

The Bible is clear that heaven isn't earned by good behavior: John 3:16, the most famous, most memorized, and most quoted sentence in the Bible says so: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." There's no mention in that famous sentence of "leading a good life."

 Pair that well-known sentence with another statement from the Bible's pages: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not of works so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) Here it specifically says that heaven's entrance is not based on "leading a good life," that's by works.

Has no one read the book of Romans? "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law . . . righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Has no one read the Gospel of John, where, not once, not twice, but 99 times (!) eternal life in heaven is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone? Has no one read the last promise of the Bible: "Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come, and whoever wishes, let him take the FREE gift of the water of eternal life"? Has no one read or heard that Jesus of Nazareth is God in the flesh who died for their sins, rose from the dead and GIVES eternal life in heaven to everyone who trusts Him for it? Has no one read heaven is a free gift to those who trust Christ?

I belabor the point that heaven is a free gift conditioned only upon faith alone in Christ alone, without cost to us (a "gift" is free, isn't it), but isn't such belaboring what's needed in view of those percentages?

NOW, HOW ABOUT THIS?

One might be encouraged to have read that 58% of Americans believe in a literal hell, but, again, hold on, Francis. The question is, "How did the 58% define "hell?" Read on.

From the Pew Research Center: "58% of U.S. adults believe in hell — a place 'where people who have led bad lives and die without being sorry are eternally punished.'” If such a definition isn't an example of Satan's snatching the gospel away from people (Luke 8:12), I don't know what is.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE

There are three impossible things, yea, four: to strike a match on a wet cake of soap; to put toothpaste back in the tube, to kill the idea that bad people go to hell, and to kill the idea that "repentance" means "to feel sorry for your sins." The idea that "repentance" means "to feel sorry for sin" is as ingrained in Americans as is the idea that bad people go to hell.

But repentance means "a change of mind," as seen in Matthew 21:29: "I will not," he answered, but later changed his mind (the Greek word for "repent") and went." In a salvational context, "repent" means to change one's mind about his own abilities to save himself, to change his mind about who Christ is (not merely a good man or a good teacher), but the Son of God who died for our sins, rose from the dead, and gives eternal life freely to anyone who trusts Him for it).

Why do people go to hell? Not because they are "bad" and didn't say, "I'm sorry I'm bad," (Matthew 7:21-23), but because, ultimately, they did not trust Christ alone as their Savior (John 3:36). Bad people, good people, sincere people, and religious people will go to hell if they trust in their works and their good, and even if they say, "I'm sorry." The issue is Christ and Him crucified. The issue is the Son of God.

SO WHAT?

It takes backbone to go out into the world, and sometimes into a church and talk about what we've been discussing today. That's why the Apostles taught to pray the early church to pray for boldness.

That's what we need, boldness. Why? Because of the status of the quo.

SALLY FIELD: HOUSTONIAN

We've heard it all our lives: "You can't legislate morality." Cliches aren't like old soldiers, of whom MacArthur said, "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away," because this cliche has never faded away. It, like all cliches, is catchy, pleasing to the ear. But it's wrong, very, very wrong.

The truth: all laws legislate morality. How so? What, exactly, is it that all laws do? Laws are a declaration that one behavior is right and its opposite behavior is wrong. Right and wrong. That's morality; laws legislate morality.

The reason the cliche won't die is because human beings lump religion with morality. (Turek) Legislation doesn't declare that immersion is right and sprinkling wrong. Legislation isn't in place to tell you to join Denomination X, but don't join Y or to observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday. That would be legislating religion.

Various groups are always trying to tell everybody how to treat one another. That's morality. Laws declare that we are not to steal from each other, murder each other, print lies about one another, drive drunk and slaughter each other, and laws say we're not to defraud one another. That's not religion; you don't have to believe in God or be a Christian to believe that those things are wrong. But you do have to believe in God to be able to ground laws in something more than your opinions, that is, you do need God to justify laws and to say that a certain morality is absolute, but you don't need God to create legislation.

IT'S SLIPPING OUR NOTICE

It's of interest that many an atheist does indeed attempt and sometimes succeeds in legislating their brand of morality. Many atheists support and work for legislation to support abortion, same-sex marriage, and socialized health care (among other things). They call for legislation to enshrine these "rights" into law because, they say, "It's the moral thing to do."

HOUSTON: PROPOSITION 1

In support of his preferences, the atheist will appeal to morality every time. Take Houston, for example. Houston, Texas (put your hand over your heart when you read, "Texas") has just endured a long battle to legislate morality. The question when a person entered the voting booth in Houston to vote on Proposition 1 was, "Whose morality am I voting to legislate?" The question was not, "Can we legislate morality?"

Those supporting Proposition 1 used morality to encourage others to vote for the proposal. Hillary Clinton, although not a Houstonian, got into the fray, saying, "No one should face discrimination for who they are or who they love--I support efforts for equality in Houston and beyond." President Obama, although not a Houstonian, also weighed in, proclaiming, "We're confident that the citizens of Houston will vote in favor of fairness and equality." ("Fairness," "discrimination," "equality," and "love"--those are all moral arguments.)

ENTER THE HOUSTONIAN: SALLY FIELD

Two-time Academy Award winner, Sally Field, a native Houstonian, flew to the city to champion the measure in the name of "a right," and to bring God into the matter: "I think it will wake up a lot of people if it doesn’t pass, but please god (sic) let’s not wake them up, let’s let it pass already.” A right? That sounds like a moral argument. Sally Field said that the opponents of Proposition 1 were "Lying, lying, lying." (Again, a moral argument; to be lying means there is truth.) The mayor of the fair city said that the passing of the proposition would show that Houston was a city of "tolerance." Tolerance? That's morality.

Fallen man just can't help himself; he (or she) just has to go all moral. It's in our DNA. (Take a look at Romans 2:15: morality "is written in all our hearts.")

Although atheists reject an absolute morality grounded in God, they enjoy pretending to be Him. Did you know that THE leading atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, has written his own Ten Commandments, as did Christopher Hitchens? Since their Big Ten aren't grounded in God, their Ten Commandments should be called, "My Ten Preferences," but the point is that they think that everyone should obey what they've written. So what is that? That's putting their morality into commandments and telling you and me to bow and bow now. Fallen man just can't help himself; he has to pretend to be God. (Read Psalm 2:1-4 to get God's viewpoint on such pretense.)

The support for Houston's Proposition 1 is a study in rebellion: the human being will call on morality to support immorality. The human being will call evil good and good evil. Although Eric Fromm wasn't thinking in a biblical sense, his verdict is true: "Man is the freak of the universe."

PAY BACK

The results are in: Proposition 1 failed to carry the day by a 62-38% margin. So, now those that supported Proposition 1 are beating the drums, calling for Houston to be punished for its "intolerance." (There's that moral word again.) But wait. What? What is this? Doesn't punishment involve a moral stance? Isn't punishment for those who've done "wrong?" More morality.

The question is not: Can we legislate morality? The question is: Whose morality are we going to legislate?