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?  

FEARFULLY, WONDERFULLY

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴ I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
¹⁵ My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
¹⁶ Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. (Ps. 139:13-16)

When a human being is conceived by fertilization, the "fearfully" and wonderfully" of Psalm 139 begin. What starts at that moment is a construction project of intricacy and precision that has no conscious direction by the mother or the baby. Things begin to take place involving DNA, chromosomes, amino acids, proteins, and cell division and what has begun, has begun with intent. New cells are reproducing in the womb, eventually, some will do so at the rate of 100,000 per second. That's fearful ( in the sense of awe-inspiring) and wonderful (in the sense of, well, wonderful).

EVEN MORE FEARFUL, MORE AMAZING

It gets more amazing: How do the new cells know where to go? In what order do they know where to go? How do some of the cells know to become heart cells? How do some know to become brain cells? The mother isn't consciously directing them to go to this place or that place and arrange themselves in a precise order. The mother isn't directing some cells to be kidneys and others to be lungs.

The organization and the order in which they are organized show intent, the intent to become a human being. It's like a complex choreographed dance with each cell intent on being in its proper place in its proper order with the intent of becoming a human being.

What is this? This is design; this is order; this is intent. This is fearful and wonderful! This is an example of Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

THE ATHEIST'S DEMAND

Many an atheist has said, "If God would write His name in the sky or the Ten Commandments on the moon, then I'd believe" (Carl Sagan). But, according to  Frank Turek, God has done infinitely more than that--He's written His name in our DNA in every cell of the human body. "The information in DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal. The nucleic sequence in DNA is informational." (J. Warner Wallace) 

And what does the fact that DNA is "informational" mean? Let's first ask, "Where does information come from?" In the entire history of the universe, in the entire history of science, no one has ever found a single instance of information coming from any source other than from intelligence. If you were to find a set of encyclopedias on a deserted island, you'd say that some intelligence, some very smart person or persons wrote those tomes. Those who discovered and read the Rosetta Stone knew for certain that some intelligence produced it because it contained information.  

[Soldiers in Napoleon's army discovered the Rosetta Stone in 1799, while digging the foundations of an addition to a fort near the town of Rosetta. The text written on the Rosetta Stone was in three scripts so that the priests, government officials, and rulers of Egypt could read what it said.]

From this, we see not only form, order, and precision, but we also see intent, whether it be intent in the womb or intent written on a stone (the inscription on the Rosetta Stone is a decree passed by a council of priests. It is one of a series that affirm the royal cult of the 13-year-old Ptolemy V on the first anniversary of his coronation.) 

Cells in the womb, cells without a mind, yet they have programmed purpose--to fearfully and wonderfully form a human being. An intelligence must be behind this precision, order, and intent, that is, a Person must be directing it, and the Psalm 139 tells us Who. 

YET

Enter the atheist. What does he do about this form, order, precision, and intent? He recognizes it! As atheist Richard Dawkins says, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He, one of the leading atheists in the world, admits it? Yes, but hang on, there's more.

Although we actually see this form, order, precision, and intent, Dawkins, like atheist Frances Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see [form, order, precision, and intent] was not designed, but evolved." Really?

LYIN' EYES

Wait. What? They're saying, "It's obvious, but remind yourself that your eyes are lying to you."  Can blind chance explain DNA, form, order, precision, and intent? The statement, "We see design, but we have to keep reminding ourselves that it's not there," reminds us of Romans 1:18-22:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools . . ."

It's evident; it's clearly seen that there is a Person who created the universe, but "No," they say, "constantly keep in mind that what you see is not designed. . ." Paul says that this is the path to foolishness. 

Foolishness? Yes. Since they can't and won't admit God is there, their explanation of form, order, precision, and intent is foolishness: space aliens. Yes, they propose that space aliens seeded the universe and they are the intelligence behind the human race. There's even a name for this absurdity: panspermia ("seed everywhere").

Listen to Richard Dawkins: "It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

"[Popularizer, gifted speaker, and American astrophysicist] Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking panspermia from Mars, Richard Dawkins mentions ancient aliens as a possible candidate for development of complex biological processes." ("The Telegraph") This foolishness is all over the place. Think of it: if the media discovers that a man running for president of the United States believes the truth of Ps. 139, he's pilloried as an idiot, but if he advocates panspermia, would he not be hailed as brilliant?

HARDENED HEARTS

"When we discover that each person has a unique name over three billion letter long written in cells so small that they are invisible to the naked eye (DNA), the atheist who demands that God write a few letters in the sky remains unmoved." (Frank Turek) The hardened heart had rather owe its existence to smart space aliens rather that bow before the omniscient, omnipotent God of Genesis 1-2.

Paul nails it in Romans 1: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." Yet The final, absolute, and ultimate word of the Psalmist  is, "I will give thanks to You . . . you wove me in my mother’s womb. .  .  I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

THE DAY THEY DANCED IN THE STREETS

Historians say that Abraham Lincoln had an uncanny ability, one few people have. Lincoln could, in most any situation, detach himself and mentally hoover in the air above it, observing and making dispassionate judgments and evaluations concerning the issue or discussion at the moment. He wasn't entangled in the emotions of the moment, instead, he sized up the matter as if he were an observer.

That's the ability the Bible gives the mature believer. We call it "discernment," or having the "divine viewpoint." Whatever we call it, it's not due to our brilliance of our brains; it's because our intellects are bowing to Scripture, the Book which gives us God's viewpoint of man and the world.

THE DAY THEY DANCED

On June 26, 2015, they danced in the streets of America. And who were the dancers? Professor Paul Kengor calls  them, "culture-transformers" for that's what they had done--they had transformed the American culture by breaking it off from from many thousands of years of the absolute model of marriage: one man and one woman, united in holy matrimony. These culture-transformers danced in the streets because the U. S. Supreme Court had abolished that absolute standard by a vote of 5-4.

Americans saw that the culture-transformers had changed something else that day, something never before fundamentally changed in all of American history; they changed the White House. The People's House was illuminated in rainbow colors that day.

So, what was this celebration from the divine viewpoint?

Divine viewpoint gives the believer the ability to see the dancing on that June day for what it was--a joyous celebration of rebellion against God and absolute truth as revealed in His model for marriage, a model that had stood for over 200 years in America. In a historical parallel, the culture-transformers were was as Israel dancing before the golden calf in their post-Exodus rebellion against God, albeit for a different reason.

WHO WERE THE DANCERS?

The celebration was a long time coming, but no matter, the rebellious revelers have been patient. Among the ones celebrating were members of the Communist Party; they were thrilled. Marx and Engels had called for the abolition of the family back in 1848, a proposal called "infamous" back then. According to Professor Paul Kengor, Marx wrote to Engels, "Blessed is he who has no family." Marx knew Engels, he knew that he hated the family and marriage. Their intellectual descendants included Lenin, Trotsky, Margaret Sanger, and Betty Friedan, along with Bill Ayers, and Mark Rudd who also railed against marriage and the family.

THE DIVINE VIEWPOINT

From the divine viewpoint, marriage existed before the state. The biblical record shows that marriage is an institution created in Genesis 2; God instituted human government in Genesis 11. The state is to recognize marriage, not redefine it. But redefine it, it has by a vote of 5-4.

Gene Veith points out the subtle and totalitarian danger in such redefining:

"If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can [redefine] the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

Thus, the divine viewpoint gives us the ability to see what's really going on--the state's moving into an area(s) it has no God-sanctioned right to go, rejecting absolute truth, and making it up as it goes along.  

HOW DID THE DANCERS DO IT?

Theirs is a study in patience; such ideas as they were proposing to fundamentally change marriage would have been scoffed at as incomprehensible as late as the 1950's.

The big dance of June 26, came about as a result of patience plus our universities which educated the culture-transformers of today. Our colleges had pedagogical help--TV and the movies, the press, Facebook (Social media came into play with its power to shame the opponents of the culture-transformers publicly via high tech mobs.), and the White House all united around the cause.

The culture-transformers had some heavy-hitters on their side. Hillary Clinton recently encouraged another politician running for his party's nomination to join her in a "Pride Parade," saying, "Come on, it's fun."

Former President, George H. W. Bush was an official witness at a same sex marriage in September 2013 in Maine; the Washington Post ran a picture of his signing the license. His famous daughter-in-law, Laura Bush agrees:

In response to a question about same sex marriage, she said, "There are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has."

"The Christian Post" reported the words of a speech to the National Press Club in Washington DC in June of 2009, given by former Vice President Dick Cheney: "I think people ought to be free to enter into any union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish." He said that while he was running for Vice President, he kept his views secret for political reasons. (All of which shows us the truth of Ps. 118:9: "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes." According to that Psalm, a person should take out the word "princes" and insert the name of whichever candidate he's tempted to trust, Democrat or Republican.)

A FIRST

What has been overlooked is that, for the first time, the transformers had the help of people we would describe as "mainstream." Those who advocated the abolition of marriage were earlier thought to be wild-eyed radicals, a lunatic fringe group, but because of the powerful coalition mentioned above (colleges, movies, TV, politicians, the press) that coalition came to include soccer moms on Facebook, pastors, and professors all joined with those whose main goal in life is to watch TV in dancing in the streets. Such a coalition from such disparate walks of life all had a common denominator--a rejection of absolute truth.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The believer with the Bible knows something else; he knows what the dancing was really all about. He knows that same-sex marriage advocates are using the issue for a deeper cause, an even more fundamental change. The issue is a Trojan Horse to attack what they hate most: Christianity. That's why they were dancing. Their attack has worked. For the time being.

But dancers beware: there is a day coming when "every eye shall see Him." That will be the day their dancing stops.

THE SOUND OF TWO HANDS CLAPPING

"In the seventh century, as the Roman empire was in the decline period of its decline and fall, the emperor Heraclitus made plans to meet with a barbarian king. Heraclitus wanted to intimidate his opponent, but he knew that the Roman army, in its weakened state, was no longer terribly intimidating, particularly when the intended intimidatee was a barbarian. So the emperor hired a group of men to augment his legions -- but for purposes that were less military than they were musical. He hired the men to applaud." ("The Atlantic," March 15, 2013)

HIRED TO DO WHAT? WHY?

That's an interesting tactic, isn't it--the use of applause to intimidate. Somehow the emperor had learned that applause is a powerful means of non-verbal communication. It's a powerful way for human beings to create thunderous and rumbling noise, signifying approval.

10,000 AGAINST 1

I was in the coliseum on the SMU campus, an arena filled to capacity to hear Francis Schaeffer and his son Frank who would be speaking after the previewing of an anti-abortion film they had made and were about to release, mainly to churches.

After the film, Frank spoke to the assembled throng with a what-do-we-do-now theme. In his speech he called for the use of what Paul would call, "Carnal weapons of warfare"--the blockading of hospitals, doctors' offices, and clinics that performed abortions. (This meant breaking the law by trespassing on private property, but that issue never came up.) There were other carnal weapons Schaeffer told us to to use--demonstrations, picket lines, and marches--you get the idea. With each (and I mean each) suggestion of what we were to do once we got back home, thunderous applause broke out all over the coliseum as people stood and clapped and clapped and clapped at each carnal suggestion. His film went on to be shown in churches all across the land and many Christians put his proffered ploys into practice.

As near as I could tell, I was the only one who never stood, never cheered, and never clapped, although at the time I couldn't tell you why I didn't, other than something just wasn't ringing true in all of this. I was just as much against abortion (and still am) as the other 9,999 were, but something just wasn't sitting right in these suggestions. Later, after studying the subject, I knew why it didn't have that truthful ring to it.

But that's not the point. The point is that the effect of all that noise from the applause was as Heraclitus knew it was--intimidating. (Since that time, Frank Schaeffer has left the faith and written a book saying that his parents were crazy and Christianity a sham.) I don't remember all that much about the weaponry he was advocating, but I do remember the 19,998 hands applauding, the throats cheering, and the noise, the intimidation they generated. (Not to stand, not to cheer, not to applaud took no courage on my part; no one was going to accost, criticize, or attack me in any way. But I realized I was all by lonesome, even in a room filled with with a multitude of believers. Not applauding can do that to you.)

UNCLE JOE

Alexander Solzhenitsyn penned a terrifying description of what life was like for Russians under Joseph Stalin in his book "Gulag Archipelago." One part of the book is especially and dramatically intimidating:

A district Party conference was under way in Moscow Province. It was presided over by a new secretary of the District Party Committee, replacing one recently arrested. At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with “stormy applause, rising to an ovation.” For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the “stormy applause, rising to an ovation” continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin. However, who would dare be the first to stop?

The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had just called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who’d been arrested. He was afraid! After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on—six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly—but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them? The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten!

In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even then those who were left would not falter. . . . Then after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down.

         They had been saved! The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel.

         That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was        how     they went about eliminating them. That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding!”

AND HERE WE ARE

And so, here we are today; we must applaud, or else. Professors must applaud evolution or face firing. Teachers have to applaud multiculturalism or face firing or censure. California school mascots must be changed by law, and one must not criticize the law. Infer, hint, or even obliquely refer to your belief that same-sex marriage is sinful, anti-bibilical, or unnatural and you have shown that you aren't applauding, so down you have to go until you "evolve," or do some "re-thinking" of the subject and then apologize and repent of your ways. Your business, livelihood, liberty, occupation, and property hang in the balance until you applaud. We're not talking "tolerate" here; we're talking "applaud."

One way or another, no matter what, they are showing us that we must applaud. And as we stand and clap, we might remember this warning from Solzhenitsyn:

"The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation’s spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse …by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."