I recently was involved in a comment-fest on another blog about the subject of gay marriage and its affects on society. This led to a very interesting debate about depopulation. My contention was that gay marriage (as in Scandinavia) adds to the general birth-dearth of Western Europe. But, what I would like to look at here is the whole matter of depopulation and its causes.

Depopulation

First of all, everyone needs to be aware that there is a worldwide phenomenon of declining birthrates. For instance, Europe is now losing about 700,000 people each year, a figure that will grow to about 3 million per year (or more) by mid century. But it is also happening throughout the world at greater or lesser levels. The question is why is this happening? I am going to give you four of the most prominent theories as to why depopulation is happening and three potential solutions for you to consider.

Reasons for Depopulation

1) One prominent theory is—we don’t have a clue. A lot of people are simply saying we don’t know why this is happening.
2) A second theory comes from Ben Wattenburg in his excellent article “Never Mind the Population Explosion.” His basic idea is that, worldwide, when families have the option to choose between more consumer goods and services or a child, they choose the goods. This is the “Advancing Affluence Argument.”
3) Generally speaking economists point to cultural and economic changes in societies that allow women to enter the job market, develop careers and become equal partners in the free market. The result of this is that childbearing tends to get deferred and women literally do not have enough years available to them to raise a large family. Additionally, the reduction of social stigmas against co-habitation and homosexuality adds fuel to the fire.
4) Pat Buchanan in his book “Death of the West” has the most pointed and hardest hitting theory. He believes that affluence and an anti-natalist culture have contributed to the development in Western society of a “culture of death.” In his theory, Western culture is committing a form of slow mass suicide. His is a theory that points to the loss of the West’s spiritual underpinnings.

Solutions

1) One response to depopulation is the ostrich approach—just let it happen. This, of course, does mean that there will radical and fundamental changes culturally and economically—including the real possibility that western civilization will no longer be Western.
2) A second solution is to significantly reduce immigration, upgrade assimilation, and provide social incentives for child-bearing. Some European countries are taking a serious look at this.
3) A third solution is provided by Buchanan and others who say the West (and the world) needs a spiritual revival because those who are religiously committed tend to have pro-family values and more children.

My tendency is to advocate for a blending of solutions 2 and 3. What’s your input on this extremely important social and spiritual subject?

I am going to attempt to kill two birds with one stone. I want to bust a Christian cliché while I deal with a secular myth.

The secular myth is the ultimate spiritual default-position of the egalitarian multiculturalist—that’s a mouthful. It goes something like this, we create our own truth and, therefore, if there is a god, all religious roads lead eventually to him/her/it. The corollary Christian cliché is that as long as one “believes in Jesus” he/she is going to heaven and that’s the main thing because heaven is the great reward. In heaven things will be pretty much equal. This is the contemporary Christian version of egalitarian multiculturalism.

Here is the myth and cliché busting insight--God is the end or goal of life and eternity. The classic Christian term for this is “felicity.” Game, set, and match.

Hold, on there, you say, how does that prove anything? Well, I could give you a tightly reasoned expose of how this all works, but instead, for brevity, I will simply line up a number of declarative statements that lead to my conclusions:

1. Buyer’s remorse proves that man has an infinite desire for happiness (which is the secular word for felicity). St. Thomas puts it this way: “We realize more their insufficiency (earthly goods) when we possess them: and this very fact shows that they are imperfect, and that the sovereign good does not consist therein.”
2. The “sovereign good” (or the ultimate good and purpose of life) can only be an infinite good which can satisfy the desire represented by buyer’s remorse. This must be because as Aristotle states: “Nothing exists in nature without a purpose” and a universal human desire like buyer’s remorse must have a universal end.
3. There can only be one universal infinite-good (God)—for there to be multiple universal infinite-goods (gods) is impossible.
4. (For Christians) the Bible clearly states that eternal life is to know God and His Son Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
5. To come to know God one must first move toward Him and stop moving away from Him (called repentance in the Bible). It is an impossibility to come to know God while moving away from Him. It is nonsensical to think all “roads lead to God.”
6. While God always remains the universal infinite good, one’s capacity to enjoy God can be greater or lesser depending upon one’s development of that capacity through love and good works. St. Thomas says: “Now, that one man enjoys God more than another, happens through his being better disposed or ordered to the enjoyment of Him.” Therefore, not all things will be equal in eternity because the ultimate reward is not heaven, it is God. Those who have greater capacity will enjoy God in a greater way.

There you go, I think I did it--two for one.

The previous blog-post is rather long. It does contain excellent background material and some challenging thoughts; however, here is its barebones summary.

1) In the Bible “heart” means volition or our free will. When one gives his/her heart to Jesus, he/she willingly does God’s will.
2) In the Bible how one is dressed in church makes a difference. God and the angels can be offended by our attire.
3) Modest attire is commanded by Scripture; particularly for worship. Immodest attire is attention-getting clothing that can be ostentatious, out-of-place or indecorous.
4) God is NOT just interested in one’s heart (modern meaning: emotions) but is concerned about how one conforms his/her will to God’s will.

Here is a Christian cliché that is very popular today: Worship is about one’s heart and not about things like what you wear. The thought is that what God wants is our hearts and everything else is superfluous to that. Well, get ready for some cliché-busting.

Heart

First of all, the word “heart” in the Bible does not refer to emotions. It refers to the center of one’s personal identity--the thing that makes us uniquely humans. Animals have emotions, but they do not have what the Bible means by heart. The heart is the seat of the volition or free will. Therefore, when I say I gave my “heart” to Jesus I am not saying I had a “quiver in my liver” or “Holy Ghost Goosebumps.” I am indicating that I have relinquished my volition (my free will) to the Lord. Consequently, if I go to church and have all kinds of wonderful emotional experiences but simply go my way and do what I want instead of conforming my will to God’s will, I have not truly given my “heart” to Jesus. Giving my heart to the Lord means that I am willing to make His values and priorities my values and priorities. This is very different than the contemporary meaning “heart-felt” worship which generally means sincere-in-the-moment personal FEELINGS of affection for MY personal conception of God. I could go on about this, but you get the point—heart is about the will.

What One Wears to Worship Counts to God

Surprise, surprise, the Bible actually has things to say about how Christians are to dress—and, yes, shockingly, about what to wear in church! In fact, St. Paul actually has the chops to write that there is apostolic authority for what he requires for worship-attire and that refusal to attend to these things offends nature and heaven.

There are certain passages of Scripture we are uncomfortable with and would rather skip over. One of those is 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 where Paul writes about head coverings for women. We ask, “What was that all about?” Isn’t that antiquated stuff and just a relic of a time and culture from long, long ago? Not according to Paul. The common practice was and is for Jewish men to cover their heads for worship and prayer. For them this symbolizes reverence and submission to God. Paul wanted just the opposite for Christian men. According to him, the Christian man’s head is the “glory” of God and must be uncovered to be displayed in worship. The married woman’s head is, therefore, the glory of the husband and should not be displayed because it robs God of His glory, if He must share it with the husband. He grounds his teaching on the authority of: 1) the apostles and their practice in all of the churches (1Cor 11:16); 2) the nature of things (1Cor 11:14); and 3) the fact that it offends the angels when Christians refuse to cover or uncover their heads (1Cor 11:10). Pretty strong stuff! Yet, most contemporary evangelical Christians (who claim to be Bible-believers) don’t even give this matter a second thought. It is interesting that Jews and Muslims are much more attentive to this matter than are Christians.

Well, you say, what does that have to do with whether I wear flip-flops and sweats to church? Glad you asked.

First, remember, Paul indicates that the angels are attentive to how, in a worship setting, God is either given glory or disrespected by our head-coverings. You’ll notice that this simple article of clothing has deep spiritual significance and is NOT superfluous to the angels. Of course, we think it is just about our “hearts” in worship, but, Paul recognized that what we wear makes a difference to God and can even offend Him and the angelic host.

In 1 Tim 2, Paul again writes about worship and he uses a word that we are very unfamiliar with—modesty. Modesty has to do with personal apparel. Modesty is a sub-virtue of temperance. Temperance constrains our pleasure-seeking impulses. The virtue of modesty, in general, may be described as that virtue which prompts us to be decorous, proper, and reserved, in the way we dress, stand, walk, sit—in general in the way we behave exteriorly. Indecorous or improper attire that is immodest can be expressed either as wearing clothing that is ostentatious (i.e. gold-braided hair) or that draws attention to oneself through its strangeness or inappropriateness. You don’t have to be wearing a $2,000 suit or an extremely low-cut dress to be immodest. When Paul writes about this, he was speaking about women but I believe he would also expect men to wear modest apparel. Here is what he says: 1Tim 2:9

1Tim 2:9 And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes.

May I suggest, that God is NOT just concerned about my “heart” (using the contemporary meaning—emotions) in worship. God and the angels are actually looking at what I wear to church! Yet, what I wear to church expresses my “heart” (Biblical meaning—my will). If I am unwilling to conform my will to God’s will, I won’t give any attention to what I wear to church. I won’t think about what is decent and appropriate. I won’t attempt to express the virtue of modesty. On the other hand, if I have given my will over to the Lord, I will think about what I wear as an expression of my new Biblical priorities and values.

In one of my earlier blog-posts I wrote about Christian clichés that I hate. Well, I am thinking that I need to be an equal opportunity cliché-buster. Now I am cooking up some favorite secular myths about Christianity that I want to roast. I’ve already dealt with the one about the Crusades. There is also the one about the Spanish Inquisition (this may surprise you). Then there is the secular myth about how Christianity has held back the advancement of science—that’s a whopper! Oh, there are so many to pick from and they are all so amazingly mythical; yet, they keep getting trotted out for mass consumption year after year.

Do you have a favorite? What secular myth about Christianity do you think needs to be roasted? Go ahead and share, let’s have some good-natured fun. I love this kind of stuff!