Post-modern culture is addicted to semantic senility. We love bureaucratese, obfuscation, indecision, and carefully padded prevarication. We babble on in the hope that by saying enough we will say something right. On the other hand, medieval culture was obsessed with dense intellectualization. Medieval culture gave us natural law whereas postmodernism has given us relativism. The natural law, to put it bluntly, is the description of the way things are. Let’s explore an example.

We note that human children are the most vulnerable of all mammals at birth. It takes years for a human child to be able to sustain itself independent of its parents. Meanwhile, a fox-trotting foal (young horse) begins its training a week to 10 days after birth! Imagine trying to train a 10-day old baby to run. From the nature of things we see that it takes humans 15-25 years to be prepared to survive independently. From this we extrapolate that parenting is extremely important for the survival of humans. We also see from nature that skills such as language, food gathering, cooperation and a huge host of other things are necessarily passed on from human parents to their children. Consequently, we reason that it is natural for parents to educate their children.

We observe that some animals such as cats do not need both male and female to care and train their young. Consequently, there is a very weak bond—if any—between “fluffy” the cat and her male suitors. Cats by nature are sexually promiscuous. We recognize this in a backhanded way by calling promiscuous people “alley cats.” However, because of the long and intense period of care that is necessary for a human child, we see that both male and female are normally needed in order to secure a safe passage of a child into adulthood. Therefore it is normal for the human male and female to have a very strong and intense bond between them. We call this marriage. This is natural because it is derived from the necessities of human survival.

In postmodern culture we are used to people babbling on about how unimportant the “traditional” family or marriage or fathers are. This is semantic senility. Read this from Thomas Aquinas who lived in an era that was much closer to nature:

“It is clear that to bring up a child requires both the care of the mother who nourishes him and even more the care of the father to train and defend him and to develop him in internal and external endowments. Therefore promiscuity is contrary to the nature of man.” (Summa II, Q. 154, A. 2)

Amazing, huh? Thomas makes the case, based on way things are, that sexual promiscuity violates the nature of mankind, male and female parents are normally necessary, and that the father is even more important in the care of the young than the mother. Whatever you do, do not let the Massachusetts Supreme Court, NOW or the ACLU read this—they may all have a stroke on the spot.

My morning paper carried the headline story from the Associate Press subtitled: “Hezbollah rocket kills eight in Haifa; Israel strikes back, killing 15.” Accompanying the article next to the headline was the usual picture of a “sole survivor of an Israeli airstrike that killed 11 children.” The only other picture, found later in the “A” section of my paper, was one of an Israeli soldier writing a message to Hezbollah on a bomb to be dropped. The article itself spent the whole first half describing how “Hezbollah and Israel traded fierce barrages for a sixth day.” Completely lacking in the article was what is known as “context.” The context tells us why, for example, an animal control agent killed a dog in someone’s front yard. If I am given a story that only tells me that some animal control agent seemingly wantonly shot and killed poor “fluffy” in the owner’s front yard, I will be outraged and demand the agent’s resignation. However, if I am given the context of the story and informed that the dog had attacked and killed a child and was running unrestrained in a neighborhood, I will want the animal control agent commended. Likewise, if I am shown an image of a suffering Arab child and than a picture of an Israeli soldier preparing a bomb, I lack the context to make a reasoned decision as to what is actually happening. Why does it seem that we are very often not given the context of the Middle Eastern strife? The reason is “moral equivalence.”

Many influential philosophers, educators and leaders in the West deny the existence of objective truth concerning good and evil. In other words, they deny the existence of rational standards by which to determine whether the beliefs and goals of one individual, group, or nation are more valid or intrinsically superior to those of another. It is amazing how many academics have made a livelihood teaching this sophisticated madness. It is madness because, if forms of objective truth change from place to place, or differ from one country to another, it follows that what humans--hence academics--deem normal or abnormal, sane or insane, has no objective validity. In other words, don’t pay any attention to what they say. The man behind the curtain has no idea what he is talking about.

Moral equivalence is a form of moral relativism. Those who engage in the use of moral equivalence are those who describe acts of Palestinian or Hezbollah terrorism, such as suicide bombing against civilians and the firing of 1,000’s of rockets into Israeli communities, on one hand, and the retaliatory acts of the Israeli Defense Forces, on the other, as equally reprehensible. Because the Associated Press seems to be populated with journalists that believe in moral relativism and moral equivalence, you and I get to read stories about the “cycle of violence” or “the continued destruction of life on both sides” in the Middle East. Again, what is missing is the context. Islamic fundamentalists have no other goal than the utter destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews. They specifically target civilian populations with impunity knowing that the Western media is unlikely to expose their obvious plans. When Israelis finally cannot take it any longer and strike against the terrorists; guess where the terrorists embed themselves—in civilian neighborhoods. Just a side note, Islamic fundamentalists do not share the Western code of male honor which deems it reprehensible to use innocent women and children as “shields” for one’s mayhem. From a Western male perspective, they are “lily livers.” Though many Western journalists view the nineteen 9/11 terrorists as men of courage, the average male in the U.S. views them as wretched cowards. This says a lot about journalists.

Despite what your typical Associated Press journalist may believe, there is moral objective truth which means that some individuals, groups and nations are more just than others. A democratic country defending is citizens and maniacal Jihad terrorist are not morally equivalent. It would be wise to figure this out before Islamic terrorists get an atomic bomb. It would be heartbreaking to grasp this insight just after the “flash.”

My wife is a marriage counselor. She says that she is noticing the trend in her field of married women going through mid-life crises willing to leave husbands and children to have a fling at single life. Her non-scientific analysis of this phenomenon is that more women than ever are buying into the media-myth of the glamorous “Sex and the City” slutty-girl lifestyle fueled by marriage ennui engendered by “Desperate Housewives.” Of course, these women are not thinking straight and are embarking on the envious imitation of a very dangerous and statistically non-existent lifestyle. What I mean is that the having sex-like-a-man hobby presented by “Sex and the City” characters—picking up strangers for sex and then plotting to get them out of their homes the next morning--is not the way women actually live—even in New York. It is just another fool’s gold, Devil’s lie.

Yes, certainly, some women may talk endlessly about sex, boy toys, aberrant sexual practices, and how unfulfilling marriage is; but, this is not the way most women talk. An amazing fact that seems beyond the grasp of the media is that men and women are different. One of the big differences is that women do not relentlessly pursue casual sex. In a very embarrassing study conducted at the University of Hawaii that continues to drive secularists nuts, male and female “researchers” approached single college students of the opposite sex in bars to propose three options. Option one was a date, option two was to go back to the questioner’s apartment, and option three was to have immediate sex. Not surprisingly, 50% of the men accepted the date; 69% agreed to go back to the apartment; and 75% agreed to immediate sex. However, of the women 50% agreed to a date; 6% consented to go to the apartment, and 0 (that is none, zilch, notta, goose egg, absolutely none) agreed to have sex immediately.* I am not a researcher but even I can figure out there is a difference between men and women on this issue. It’s fascinating that Ivy League educated journalists and Hollywood media producers cannot seem to figure this out. Well, maybe is more saddening than fascinating.

The truly sad thing is that so many normal women outside of Manhattan have come to think that “Sex and the City” is real. For the record it should be noted that “Sex and the City” is the brainchild of gay wunderkind Darren Star who created “Melrose Place” and “Central Park West.” As Star noted of “Sex and the City”, “I guess I just have a strong feminine side.” This seems to me to be the real point. What one is seeing in “Sex” is a male gay version of single women acting just like gay men. Can you say “Sodom and Gomorra.”

*Sileo, Chi Chi. 1995. “Studies Put Genetic Twist on theories about Sex and Love.” Insight, 3-10 July: 36-37.

Also check out: “The Sexual Revolution” (pp. 96-105), Taking Sex Differences Seriously by Steven E. Rhoads, Encounter Books, 2004.

I just got another email from a congregant who had been attempting to defend his faith from and unbeliever. At issue was Jesus’ statement that only the Father knows the time of Christ’s coming (Matt 24:36). I answered the congregant by explaining the dual natures of Christ. However, have you ever wondered exactly how the human and divine natures of Christ worked in conjunction with each other? I am not suggesting that I can fully explain this and I am sure there are many others who are far more capable, but let me give it a shot.

In Jesus of Nazareth his human nature had its proper human form and powers by which it acted. Likewise, in Jesus, there was his divine nature which had its own form and powers (infinite, of course). In other words, the human and divine natures of Christ had their distinct and proper functions in-and-of-themselves. Yet, the divine nature of Christ made use of the action of the human nature much like a musician would use his/her instrument. Additionally, Christ’s human nature participated in the action of the divine nature much like an instrument participates in the actions of a musician. An example would be that when Jesus healed people it was his divine nature empowering and working through his human nature to cleanse the leper or raise Lazarus from the dead. Of course, his human nature was the instrument of the divine healing power of God and, yet, the leper did really and truly feel the touch of a human hand upon his broken body. When we listen to a skilled clarinetist play a piece by Mozart, we thrill at the sound of the instrument but we also realize that the real maker of the beautiful music is the musician. However, we are not to push this analogy too far. As opposed to a clarinet, Christ’s human nature had a will, intellect, soul and animated body. Yet, the human and divine natures of Christ worked in complete harmony.

It is wise and helpful for Christians to reflect on the mystery of the incarnation because it is the very heart and soul of our religion and it has huge implications for our salvation.

“The need for reconciliation also explains why the movements for disordered sexuality—homosexual, pederastic, sadomasochistic—cannot be satisfied with toleration, but must propagandize, recruit, and convert. They do not suffer from sexual deprivation, for partners are easy enough to find. They suffer from social deprivation, because they are cut off from the everyday bonds of life. They want to belong; they want to belong as they are; there can be only one solution. Society must reconcile with them. The shape of human life must be transformed. All of the assumptions of normal sexuality must be dissolved: marriage, family, innocence, purity, childhood—all must be called into question, even if it means pulling down the world around their ears…you cannot be content that your critics are feeble and ineffective, you cannot be content with their practical tolerance for your activities. You want, in a sense you need, actual acceptance, open approval. If you cannot convert your critics by argument, at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country.” – J. Budziszewski, “What We Can’t Not Know,” Spence Publishing Company, 2003, p. 153-154.

In the above statement, J. Budziswewski, professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, makes the case that those who advocate “tolerance” for deviant sexual and social behavior are actually compelled to demand acceptance of their “lifestyle choices.” Consequently, Christians and others who, for conscience sake, cannot give such acceptance will find that the force of law will eventually bear down upon them. In other words, do not be fooled into thinking that those who complain that conservative Christians are “judgmental” and “intolerant” will themselves be—when they have captured the legislative and judicial reigns of power—tolerant of those who do not agree with their disordered philosophy.

I have for years been fascinated by a statement from St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 about the “man of lawlessness.” He says:

2 Thess. 2:3-4 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Of course, many Evangelical teachers take this passage to mean that the Antichrist will set himself up to be worshiped in the restored and rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. I’m not so convinced of this view. I think a compelling case can be made that when Paul refers to “God’s temple”, he is writing about the church. In my view, the Antichrist will come from within the church. An interesting factor is the title itself, “the man of lawlessness.” What law? Obviously, this refers to God’s law. The Antichrist will be one who is very much “spiritual” and worshipful; however, he will oppose God’s law. Does this remind you of anything or make you think of anything? Have you ever wondered why those who oppose traditional biblical morality seem compelled to seek high office within the church? Why do they not just boldly and brazenly disagree with church teaching and set up their own institutions and organizations? Why must they work with amazing energy from within the church to overthrow traditional moral teaching? I think Budziszewski has the answer.