"Genesis 1: 27-28 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I am going to summarize two things I read in the newspaper this morning then attempt to connect the dots of the content within the articles. This will serve as a springboard for one of my very opinionated posts about contemporary society.

The first article was a front-page story today. It told how the federal government of the United States of America is attempting to pass legislation that will add a $10 tax to every cigar sold in our country. This will be a jump from the previous federal tax of 5¢ a “stick.” Obviously, our “nanny state” legislators are desirous of stamping out the twin evils of cigar smoking and private cigar-smoke shops.

The second article was actually a Cal Thomas commentary in which he tells of the remarkable social breakdown in Britain which he sees as a concomitant to its establishment’s “growing anti-Christian animosity and spiritual confusion.” He gives several recent examples of how British courts have ruled against Christian moral practice (i.e. refusing to allow churches to restrict homosexuals from being youth workers; refusing to allow Christians to wear “chastity rings, etc.) while allowing unusual latitude toward other religions (i.e. refusing to let a bull infected with bovine tuberculosis be destroyed, which can threaten public health, because a Hindu community worships it).

Okay, here is my point. I believe what we are seeing here is the growing tide of anti-masculinity. Western society is currently attempting to eradicate any symbol, sign or practice that is associated with classic masculine values and virtues. For instance, cigar smoking (which I am not particularly fond of) is a quintessential male activity. Likewise, men—as fathers—in Western society used their considerable power to restrict homosexual men from coming in contact with children and have honored the chastity of their daughters. Therefore, the establishment must, at all costs, discredit and, if possible, eradicate these things. The result of all of this, of course, will be continued social chaos.

Social chaos will follow the suppression of masculinity for the following reasons. First, it violates the natural law established by God incarnated in the bifurcation of the human race into two complementary sexes. It elevates the values of one of the sexes (female) over the other in a particularly dangerous way. Men have traditionally idealized women but the current approach is to elevate female values by suppressing masculine virtues. Secondly, by suppressing male virtues the result will be a devaluation of fatherhood. This, certainly, is the most dangerous aspect of the anti-masculinity movement. Traditional masculine virtues suppress the negative aspects of men’s behavior in favor of the responsibility of providing a secure home for his wife and children. Loosed from these traditional virtues, men literally run wild in the streets creating social chaos. Anyone who thinks we can devalue fatherhood and at the same time have a safe and sane society needs to be committed to the “funny farm.” Unfortunately, most of the people who believe we can do this are in positions of great influence.

Finally, this anti-masculine and anti-paternalistic movement must result in the suppression of Christianity. The reason for this is because in Western culture most of the traditional virtues of masculinity are writ large in a text called the Bible. There is no way around it; the establishment must suppress Christian virtues and practice. The greatest block to the purging of Western culture of male traditionalism is Christianity. The suppression of Christianity will insure social chaos.

Down through church history there have been certain heretical groups that have held that bodily functions arise from an evil source. This was the view of the Albigensians or Cathari. Even earlier Augustine wrote (“On Heresies”, 40, PL, 42, col. 32), “most arrogantly (those) who call themselves Apostolics, because they refuse to accept into their communion those who practice marriage, and who possess goods of their own, and also many monks and clerics. But these men are thereby heretics, for in separating themselves from the Church, they think that there is no hope for those who use these things which they do without.” In other words, the Apostolics believed it was wrong for Christians to own private property or to marry. These things they consider evil in themselves. However, 1Timothy 4:4 says “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving.” Consequently, it is an error to say that certain foods are of themselves evil. This is why Christians need to be ready to stand against the rising tide of political correctness in regard to food.

It is my view that we are witnessing a growing non-traditional Puritanical Cult. It is reasonable to be concerned about one’s health and to eat a healthy and balanced diet. However, it is another thing to begin to apply a moral stigma to certain foods. This is exactly what is happening in our society in regard so-called “junk food.”

It is the Christian view that no food is by nature evil because everything is good in its own nature. But a specific food may be bad for a certain individual because it is incompatible with his state of health. So, the intake of food is not a sin in itself. Yet, how a person uses food can be sinful if it damages his health. The intake of food can also damage a man’s soul. For instance, a man might eat very expensive gourmet food when he really cannot afford it and therefore be less able to provide for his family. This is an indirect way that the intake of food can be the cause of a sin. Another way that man can use food inappropriately and damage his soul is by violating the sensibilities and customs of his neighbors. Paul writes about this in Romans 14 by which a Christian uses his freedom in Christ to offend his brother who does not have the same freedom to eat certain foods (i.e. kosher foods).

The bottom line is this; food of itself is not evil—even a McDonald’s Big Mac. However, how food is used can be sinful. The Puritanical Cult wishes to stigmatize certain foods as evil and thereby avoid the messy task of identifying and living by traditional moral behavior.

I grew up in a strict Christian home. I was taught by my parents that Christians should not tattoo themselves because their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 6:19-20) and that the Old Testament restricts the practice. I was taught that though we have freedom in Christ from many of the Old Testament kosher laws; yet, tattoos have a long history of being associated with pagan religious and occult practices (Lev 19:28). Therefore, Christians should avoid any association with practices like tattooing the body. I have to admit, I still believe tattooing is a very dicey and problematic issue.

I do know that wherever Christian missionaries have gone (Protestant or Catholic); tattooing has generally come to an end for converted peoples.

I also believe that Christians are admonished by the New Testament to be modest (1 Timothy 2:9). Modesty is more than properly covering one’s body. The purpose of modesty is to avoid unduly drawing attention to oneself. Tattoos accomplish exactly the opposite. They quintessentially have the opposite effect. They are the permanent equivalent of loud or gaudy jewelry.

Okay, this leads up to my struggle. On the one hand I do not have any prejudice against anyone who has been tattooed before becoming a Christian. Nor do I run around condemning Christians that get tattoos. On the other hand I have a problem with a pastor and his sermon. I viewed a sermon online yesterday from a megachurch in Florida. It is one of those edgy evangelical churches that uses a lot of MTV type-videos, dresses very rock-star casual, and has the general look and feel of contemporary media-driven culture. I do not have a problem with all of this per se. My problem was with the pastor’s sermon and central illustration.

The pastor was preaching on commitment. To set up his sermon he and his team created a lead-in video. He had himself filmed getting a temporary tattoo that wears off in about three weeks. He then compared the temporary tattoo with his permanent one. The point was that Christians need to make a real commitment to God (illustrated by the permanent tattoo). The temporary tattoo illustrated a superficial commitment to God.

Given that I believe tattooing is inappropriate for Christians, let me use my own comparable illustration which I think illuminates my struggle. The same pastor could have used “Near Beer” and regular beer for the same point. He could have chugged down a few Near Beers and then compared it to “really” getting drunk with regular beer. This would have just as effectively illustrated his point. However, probably most people in his congregation would have thought that the illustration using beer defeats the purpose of teaching Christian virtue.

My point is that means and end need to match. If the “end” of Christian teaching is the inculcation of Christ-like behavior; then, the means of teaching (i.e. illustrations, videos, worship style, apparel, etc.) need to also demonstrate Christ-likeness. In my mind, it is self-defeating to use one's permanent tattoo to illustrate a positive Christian virtue.