Two thousand fourteen years ago, God came into this sin-tainted world so that Light would shine in the darkness.
But, today, the darkness seems so oppressive. Will it overwhelm the Light?”
Sexual immorality abounds. Sensuality is an idol. Girls assume that it’s “normal” to be sexually intimate with boys. Planned Parenthood uses the book Fifty Shades of Gray to explain to 15-year-old girls why sadistic and masochistic sex is “okay” if the girl “gives permission.” Pedophilia is on the rise. Sodomy is tolerated as just another expression of “love.” Marriage is assaulted not just by advocates of same-sex “marriage,” but by adultery, cohabitation, no-fault divorce. Children grow up in homes with their mommy and her boyfriend. Grandchildren see their grandparents “shacking up.”
The darkness seems so oppressive… will it overwhelm the Light? No!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:1-5).
But aren’t we living in times more dark than any other? Isn’t darkness more oppressive and evil more ominous than ever before? No!
Alvin Schmidt, the author of How Christianity Changed the World, explains that from early on, Christians have found themselves in cultures that, indeed, “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator,” and because of this, “God gave them over to shameful lusts” (Romans 1:25-26). This is how St. Paul described the Greco-Roman society of his day.
Schmidt writes, “By the first and second centuries after Christ, undefiled sexual intercourse, along with marital faithfulness, had essentially disappeared. Not only were adultery and fornication common, but people engaged in all sorts of sexual methods, many of them obscene.”
He continues, “Roman marriages had greatly deteriorated; they had become a ‘loose and voluntary compact [and] religious and civil rites were no longer essential.’ Marriage was ‘detested as a disagreeable necessity.’ Since people had become obsessed with sex, marital unions were very short-lived.” The Latin Church father, Tertullian, “noted that male/female sex relations had become sadistic and masochistic . . . Heterosexual love had turned into a type of sport.” Prostitution, incest, and mutilation were not uncommon.
The world at that time seemed very, very dark. Overwhelmingly dark.
But, writes Schmidt, “into this immoral sexual environment came the Christians with a radically different sexual ethic and lifestyle . . . [W]hen God instituted marriage at the time of creation, He told Adam and Eve that the sex act made a husband and wife one flesh (Gen. 2:24). The one flesh concept required the married couple to be totally faithful to each other.” Schmidt points to a second-century document that describes how the early Christians differed from the pagan Romans by confining their sexual behavior to married life. The document reads: “They [Christians] marry as do all; they beget children . . . They have a common table, but not a common bed” (Epistle to Diognetus).
One would think that the darkness of the Roman culture was so oppressive that Christians would shrink away and take their Light with them. But, no!
Schmidt writes that “Galen, a Greek physician of the second century, was impressed with the upright sexual behavior of Christians. He said they were ‘so far advanced in self-discipline and . . . intense desire to attain moral excellence that they are in no way inferior to true philosophers.’”
The Christian doctrine and practice of marriage was “so powerful,” writes Schmidt, that historian Edward Gibbon says, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians.”
The dignity of marriage was restored! And there’s more! Schmidt writes, “The dignity and sanctity of marriage that Christianity brought to Roman culture were mostly due to the early Christian women. They appreciated the dignity and worth that Christ’s teachings accorded them” (prior to Jesus’ earthly ministry, women were too often held in low esteem). Women, “more so than men, understood the seriousness of their biological role as bearers of children in God’s created order. Thus, the wedding rite, the precursor to the fulfillment of that role, needed to be conducted with solemnity and reverence.”
Lest we think this is mere speculation on the part of Schmidt or any other historian, here’s what the pagan Libanius said about the dedication of Christian wives and mothers of that time: “What women these Christians have!”
It is no different today. A woman who sees herself in the Light of Christ can also see her relationships, choices, and behaviors in that same Light. As she begins to see the seriousness of her biological role as a bearer of children in God’s created order, she can also help her boyfriend, fiancé, or husband understand this, too. As she contrasts passionate eros love with patient and virtuous agape love (1 Corinthians 13), she can positively influence not only the man in her life but her children and grandchildren.
It is true that the darkness of sin and evil is oppressive. Marriage is under assault and weakened by every form of sexual idolatry. But the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. God is faithful to use men and women who trust the Light to make a difference one person, one family, one neighborhood at a time. Sometimes, as happened in Rome, even seemingly hopeless and depraved cultures begin to look with favor on wives and mothers, husbands and fathers.
Darkness is oppressive, but the Light cannot be overcome. And in that Light, the dignity of marriage and family can slowly be restored.
I believe it.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
We Want Free Chocolate
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Life issues, tagged abortion, birth control, contraceptives, health care, Hobby Lobby, Karee Santos, pro-choice, reproductive rights on July 18, 2014| 3 Comments »
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their
mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvyanger. The battle cry seemed to be “we want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
1. Many people want dark chocolate.
2. Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
3. Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
4. The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.
The social, medical, and economic benefits of such a scheme are clear. Politicians would be wise to start a political party based on these principles, or at least incorporate these ideas into the plank of an already-existing party platform. Not only would chocolate-for-free garner even more popular support than contraception-for-free, it would also encounter less opposition. Consider this:
1. Chocolate appeals to men, women, and children of all ages, whereas contraception would only arguably be beneficial for men and women of child-bearing age.
2. Chocolate does not contain synthetic hormones that may raise the risk of cancer and harm the environment by polluting our streams.
3. Chocolate does not cause a small but real risk of increased blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and stroke.
4. No one (as far as I know) has a religious objection to eating chocolate or providing free chocolate to others.
So I say, forget free sex. We want free chocolate. Are you with me?
Karee Santos is a happily married mother of six. She blogs in English at Can We Cana? and in Spanish at Comencemos en Caná. This article was originally published at Can We Cana?
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”
“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”
“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf
Read Full Post »