Category Archives: Post-Modernism

Sexual Liberation of Women Leads to Sexual Slavery

Women-and-sexual-slavery-Essay

The article “We Were All Meant To Be Sluts” is one author’s attempt to liberate women from the sexual shackles placed on them by society.  The author, however, actually undermines the goal the author set out to achieve.  He wants to liberate women’s sexuality from society’s “system” of morality.  However, his postmodern advice will only lead to the sexual slavery of women.  (I do find it somewhat self-serving that a MAN would champion the sexual liberation of women, perhaps creating more willing sexual experiences for himself.)

Mark Groves, the author, asked “If sexuality and sexual freedom brings our character into question, then what do we think about the many wise and amazing human beings who found themselves and learned their lessons through sexual exploration and being open-mindedhit-by-bus about making mistakes?”  This statement assumes that personal experience is a preferred way of gaining wisdom.  You can certainly gain wisdom by walking in front of a moving bus, but wisdom from doing that is best learned from other people’s experiences.  There are consequences to sex outside of the safety of marriage, especially if those sexual encounters are frequent.  Sexual boundaries are meant to protect people from the consequences of promiscuity.

Mark also based most of his article on a straw man argument that those who promote the benefits of marriage and warn against the consequences of sex outside of the lifetime straw manexclusivity of one man and one woman have a “fear of sexuality.”  Yes, there are consequences for promiscuity that can have serious repercussions for families and society.  But, we do not fear the sex act.  Sex within the boundaries of marriage is satisfying and stabilizing.  Sex within marriage protects women from the savage, unrestrained sexuality of men.

Mark reduced marriage from a sacred status to simply “a beautiful thing” because the “divine heterosexuals who rule the institution” get divorced, commit adultery, and view pornography.  He is saying that marriage is only as important as people treat it; that the worth of marriage is wrapped up in the worth people give it.  By that logic black slaves were unimportant because slave owners treated them poorly; or that women in Saudi Arabia are less valuable than men because they are treated poorly.  Contrary to Mark’s assertion, marriage has inherent worth regardless of whether people treat it as valuable, because the One who created the institution of marriage defined and gave it value.  That people do not value what is inherently valuable does not reduce marriage’s worth.

In a bit of hypocrisy, Mark decried the suppression of female (promiscuous) sexuality in one breath, but then in the next breath, he shames the sexual freedom of rapists, child molesters, and people with sexual fetishes.  By what standard of morality does he condemn rape and child molestation?  Who decreed those sexual practices to be wrong?francis schaeffer feet in mid air.jpg  Mark Groves? Society?  If society has decreed rape wrong, isn’t that just another “system” that interferes with someone’s sexual freedom?  Didn’t society once say homosexual sex should be punished? Isn’t it society’s “system” that puts the brakes on female (promiscuous) sexuality?  Why is Mark upholding one system that suppresses someone’s sexual freedom while trying to tear down that system for sexual practices he prefers?  The truth is, Mark has no standard by which he chooses other than his own personal preferences.  Christianity, on the other hand, has a moral foundation for saying rape and child molestation is wrong because such acts are decreed wrong by a transcendent moral source, God.  In reality, Christianity promotes an eternal, objective standard of morality, while Mark promotes a relative, subjective standard that changes with the whims of society.

Towards the end of his article Mark offered a bit of postmodern nonsense advice.  He postmodernism relative truthsaid “There is no one way to do anything. And anyone who claims to have it all figured out is the very person to run from” and “There is no ‘right way’. There is only your way. And no one knows your life better than you. Live YOUR truth.”  He is essentially saying “You can’t tell people what to do” which is, of course, telling you what to do.  The problem with this advice is that it is self-defeating.  Self-defeating statements cannot possibly be true.  He is saying that truth is relative. The problem here is that he is making an absolute truth claim.  He is saying “It is true that truth doesn’t apply to everyone.” But in order for him to make that claim, his truth claim has to be true for everyone.  His assertion is self-defeating, and therefore, not true.  The truth is that truth is true for everyone.

Mark tries to summon the magic of John Lennon’s “Imagine” with his several “Imagine if” statements. He said “Imagine if we were told to just play, see, and feel.”  Yes, imagine acalvinhobbesmoralrelativism world where everyone did as he pleased.  Imagine if there were no judgments to prevent you from playing, seeing, and feeling what you’d like. Imagine no boundaries where the strength of men overpowers the weakness of women, but no one was allowed to make any judgments.  That is the world Mark Groves will find with his bad advice.

He tries to prevent this outcome by asserting “all of our decisions just need to be guided by our human capacity and desire to be kind. If every decision we made were based on the answer to the question: ‘What would love do?'”  But, Mark has no moral foundation to base his guidance on “human capacity and desire to be kind.”  “Human capacity and desire to be kind?” What if someone doesn’t want to be kind?  What gives Mark the authority to force someone to make decisions on kindness?  Who gets to define what “kindness” is?

Mark talked about “love” but then in the end just defines love as the sexual act.  “You are the expert of you. You know you better than anyone. You know how you love. You know what feels good, and you know what your heart beats for. You know what you want to try and what you are curious about.”  “Love” in his imaginary world is nothing more than the banality of sex for the sake of an orgasm.

human-trafficking.jpgAll that Mark has done with his article is to give people an excuse to “Live YOUR truth,” to abandon commitments because they are no longer pleasurable.  That world would not be paradise for women, but a hell on earth. Trying to liberate women, Mark Groves would put them in chains.

Advertisements

Please Don’t Pet the Peeves II

Pet Peeves

I started this recurring blog back in 2014 and haven’t posted again since.  I started with four pet peeves.  You can read them here.  So now I will offer my Pet Peeve number 5.

5. Self-refuting statements
Self-refuting statements are truth claims that contradict themselves.  They pretend to be true, but they fail to meet their own standards.  Therefore, self-refuting statements cannot possibly be true.
selfrefuting sign.png
For example, here are some self-refuting statements with suggested responses:

“There is no truth.”  Your response to this statement should be Is that statement true?  How can the statement be true if there is no truth?

“Well, there may be truth, but it’s not knowable.”  Oh, yeah? How do you KNOW the truth that truth is not knowable?

“No person has the truth.” Then I can disregard that statement from you, right?

“You can’t know anything for sure.” Are you sure about that?

“Truth is just a matter of opinion.” So, are you imposing your opinion of truth on me?

“You can’t impose your morality on someone else.”  So you’re saying it is immoral for me to tell someone else that he is being immoral?

“You’re not supposed to judge.”  Then why are you judging me for making judgments?

“The scientific method is the only means of knowing truth.”  OK, Poindexter, how do you know that statement to be true by using the scientific method?

“What’s true for you isn’t true for me.”  Are you insisting that your statement applies to me?

Our postmodern culture is plagued with all kinds of self-refuting statements.  Learn to identify them and pull the rug out from under them in order to advance the truth.

Is the World Going Insane, or Am I?

insane_world1

I came to a realization last night after the Republican Party booed conscience, and cheered “I’m proud to be gay.”  Either the world is going insane, or I am.  That question is what I’m going to ponder over the next month while I avoid social media.

mad-worldI know that the Scripture says not to announce your fast to avoid self-righteousness.  My announcement of my fast of social media, however, is not to promote myself as a “holier-than-thou” person.  For those of you who still read my writing (and by the look of my blog traffic, few of you still do) I want to explain my absence.  I’ve been accused of dropping judgmental bombs and then flying under the radar for a time in order to let the uproar die down only to swoop in and drop more.

Before I go any further, I want to say how much I love and appreciate my wife, Dawn.   God has used her to help center me and keep me disciplined.

Dawn, I used to think that God doesn’t have just one person for someone to marry, but that the person you marry becomes that one person.  Now, I see God’s orchestration in brining us together to be the perfect spouse for my perfection and sanctification.

I came to this crossroads last night.  The world seems to be falling apart.  Even the Republican Party is celebrating the sin of homosexuality.  The party that used to be dominated by conservative Christians is now dominated by godless conservatives.  The opposing political party, the party that booed God at their national convention in 2012, enthusiastically cheers on and supports a hypocritical, godless criminal as their pick for president.

My life’s goal has been to speak the truth in a world that loves lies.  Lately, even those of my spiritual family, however, seem to be tone deaf to the message I bring.  Whether it be the Church’s idolatry (of sports, coffee, entertainment, family, tolerance, self-esteem, etc.) or on what truth is to be spoken and how it’s to be spoken.  I’ve been harping on a Church filled with people who appear to me to worship college football, the NFL, the NBA alongside of their worship for God.  I see more enthusiasm for things of sports than things of God, nobody seems to think that this observation applies to them.  The usual retort is to say that sports is not inherently evil, and so the idolatry goes on.

I still have a sports idolatry.  Not when I play them as recreation, but when I root for my teams.  I have decided to completely tear down this idol.  It’s an idol that is working against God anyway.  Besides taking my heart away from worshiping God exclusively, it is trannyworking against God in our society by taking stands for unrighteousness.  The NBA just announced that it is moving the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte, NC because of the law that protects young girls from being forced to shower with grown men.  The NFL threatened to move the Superbowl.  Disney, the rock band Boston, and other entertainment companies have vowed to boycott places that protect religious liberty.

Even after Christians are made aware of this, they continue to vociferously consume this entertainment as if nothing is wrong.

I’ve been trying to get to know who God is and how I am to worship him.  I see silly “worship” songs that seem to get Christians motivated emotionally but are devoid of anything theological.  I think I am speaking the truth, but I keep getting push back from people, or worse, they completely ignore me.  It seems people are afraid to have a discussion because it might get unpleasant.  So, they avoid the exchange of ideas and are never exposed to a true idea that might steer them to the truth.

I am not saying I always have the truth.  Being confident in your opinion and insisting on it being the truth is not self-righteousness nor is it arrogant. Of course I think I’m right, otherwise I would not have voiced or advocated a position. Others think they are right, otherwise they wouldn’t challenge my position. But the debate needs to happen because it is in that discussion that we work toward what is true.

The truth is sometimes presented in an arrogant way (of which I know I am sometimes guilty).

“…’Sometimes’ you say?”

OK, enough from the peanut gallery. I try not to be arrogant.

“Maybe you need to try harder.”

Are you done? I have a serious point here.

People tend to read emotions into social media posts that simply aren’t in the minds of the authors. Then the authors get accused for the way they made the readers feel.

Boys and girls, it’s time to put down those participation trophies, leave your safe spaces, and grow into fully functioning adults.

First of all, don’t assume offense was intended. We probably are not as clairvoyant as we think. Secondly, we are not required to carry offense, real or imagined. This situation is the kind for which Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek.

Social media is a place of human communication. Wherever humans interact there are bound to be miscommunications, misunderstandings, and mistakes. There will also be malevolence. The solution is not to shut down the forum or to limit it to light-hearted, soft-headed discussions. To do so would simply yield the forum to banality and lies.

Social media is full of truth claims that compete and clash. Sometimes this conflict produces more heat than light. For Christians to avoid the conflict altogether is not what God has called us to do. The Church has largely avoided conflict with the secular humanists in our culture and now all of our institutions are run by secular humanists.

We must be willing to cross swords with wicked and vain philosophies without cowering because someone might be offended, even on social media. We must speak the truth in love. But speaking the truth in love still requires speaking the truth.

Because I want to be on the side of truth and not promoting lies, I am open to having my mind changed.

hqdefaultThere is something wrong.  It is either me, or the world.  I know my fellow believers do not want to be on the side of lies, but I’m not convinced they are courageous enough to seek the entire truth.  Then again, am I deluded in thinking that I have the truth that no one else has?  Am I pompous, condescending, arrogant?  Am I speaking the truth, but people are turned off by my personality, or the manner in which I present the truth?  Are people so engrossed in postmodernism that any presentation of the truth is offensive to them?  I want to find out the answers.

I intend to avoid social media to free up more time to seek God, and pursue the truth.  I hope to offer to you what I have found.  I am jealous for the glory of God, and ardent in my defense of the truth.  I just don’t want to make my ministry an idol.

See you in a month.

Chris