Posted on 09/16/2016 5:17:24 AM PDT by Petrosius
Sexual progressives claim to be ushering in a “brave new world” of freedom. But their “new” morality is as old as the hills.
How often have you heard sexual progressives claim that those of us who hold to traditional sexual morality and marriage are “on the wrong side of history?”
But as one new book points out, it’s the proponents of the sexual revolution who are embracing a sexual morality that history left behind millennia ago—in the dusty ruins of the Roman Forum.
Yes, today Western civilization is undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. In just a few short years our society has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage, embraced the notion that men can become women, and is now promoting the idea that grown men should be welcome to share a bathroom with women and young girls. Not unexpectedly, we’re also seeing movement toward the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest.
It’s precisely in times like this that we need some historical perspective. Which is why Lutheran pastor Matthew Rueger’s new book, “Sexual Morality in a Christless World,” is a timely godsend. In it, Rueger shows how Christian sexual morality rocked the pagan world of ancient Rome. The notions of self-giving love, sexual chastity, and marital fidelity were foreign, even shocking to the people of that time.
Citing existing scholarship, Rueger details the Roman sexual worldview that prevailed for hundreds of years. Women and children were viewed as sexual objects; slaves—male and female--could expect to be raped; there was widespread prostitution; and predatory homosexuality was common. Christian sexual morality might have been seen as repressive by the licentious, but it was a gift from God for their victims.
Rueger writes that “Claims in our day of being progressive and moving forward by accepting the ‘new prevailing views on sexuality and same-sex marriage' are horribly misinformed … Contemporary views about sexuality are simply a revival of an older and much less loving view of the world.”
But they are also a revival of an older and impoverished view of human beings. Imagine the reaction of a pagan Roman slave girl who learned for the first time that she had value—not monetary value as a piece of goods to be enjoyed or discarded by her owner—but eternal value because she was made in the very image of God.
Or imagine the pang of conscience felt by an unfaithful Roman husband when he learned that God became incarnate, and took on human flesh, and that how he treated his own body and the bodies of others mattered to God. Mattered immensely.
Folks, we can’t look away and ignore this unholy revival of pagan sexuality and its cheapened view of human beings. But we also can’t wring our hands in fear or throw them up in defeat. As Rueger points out, Christ and His Church radically transformed a far more sexually cruel and chaotic world than ours.
Look to those ancient believers who went before us: Rather than succumbing to or accommodating the spirit of the age, new converts in the early Church came to understand, as Rueger writes, that “Christian morality is based on Christ’s all-encompassing purity and self-emptying love…Christians could no longer live as the Greeks or Romans. Their worldview and self-view was distinctly different. They were now one with Christ in heart and soul.”
Now, their distinctiveness, as Rueger writes, “would not spare them from suffering; it would invite suffering.” It’s pretty clear now that the same holds true for us. Will we bend the knee to this revived pagan sexuality, or will we hold out to a needy world the freedom of God’s plan for human sexuality?
Christianity defends the weak against the strong.
Most people get married and stay married for life. Even the marriages that end in divorce usually don't involve infidelity. It is in our nature to be monogamous. Establishing a permanent relationship based on total trust and honesty is the only way to achieve happiness and satisfaction. Traditional Judeo-Christian morality is an excellent reinforcement of our instinctive natures.
Progressives are regressive ...
That statement hit me right between the eyes, too. Excellent talking point
which I plan to use in debates with “progressive” friends.
Metaxas is a gem, and this Mathew Reuger book he recommends sounds worthwhile.
PING!
Judaism and Christianity have lasted for thousands of years for good reasons. Wiccans, Aztecs and Druids? No so much...
As I understand it, men are actually naturally polygynous, while women are serially monogamous. However, what we call God’s plan for sexuality is obviously less cruel than us simply succumbing to our own genes.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that “Progressism” was an ancient conspiracy to return mankind back to slavery and idolatry.
Word.
Yes, the book looks very good.
“Progressives” can make a “victim” out of the most unexpected people. For example, a man in his 40s who wants to strip in the ladies’ dressing room is a “victim,” while the little girls who’d like to dress in the same room are not.
Besides being oppressive for its victims, the “new” morality (which, as the author points out, is neither new nor moral) focuses attention entirely on the carnal. Whatever can be present in the act of sex beyond mere libido is cast aside. And that makes the act between humans qualitatively the same as the rut between two animals.
A society so obsessed with bestial pleasures is not one likely to ennoble its future.
Excellent post, and one that can’t be repeated itself. People need to be reminded that Christian sexual ethics were considered both revolutionary and liberating when introduced into pagan societies. The left believes that abortion and birth control remove all negative consequences from promiscuity. The left is wrong.
Great post!
I had a goose and a gander that called the pond above the pasture home. One morning I went out and only the gander remained, and there was a trail of feathers heading out to the treeline. The gander didn’t know what to do with himself, honking and honking in distress as he looked everywhere for his mate. This went on for weeks. After he finally seemed to accept that she was gone, he took to following the horses around the pasture, seemingly for lack of any other friends. He ventured with those horses far away from the safety of the pond. One day I noticed he had a horrible limp. Figured he must have accidentally gotten stepped on. It wasn’t long after that he dissapeared too, another trail of feathers heading to the treeline. It really was sad to see how distraught he was over losing his life mate.
I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure I believe that. Most (too lazy to look up, I think around 75%) men never cheat on their wives. I don't believe it's because they are all such devout church-goers.
You don't have to try to make me feel good. That's my wife's job (and she does it well).
I agree. Simply from a species-survival perspective, it's clear that one man/one woman is most successful for child survival and flourishing, as well as for genetic dispersion.
That’s a sad story. We have several bird pairs in our garden: Bill and Mrs. Bill, the cardinals; Tom and Mrs. Tom, the mockingbirds ...
Even less than bestial, because the animals are reproducing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.