Praising Ungodliness

Within the past two years, the Orlando Sentinel decided to print on a weekly basis the comments from a select group of 100 "influential leaders" in this area dealing with some of the top stories of the past week and the next week. Occasionally one finds some good comments, but a Christian does not have to read much in order to discern that the way the world thinks has little in common with the philosophy of the Creator. In fact, it is not difficult at all to figure out why only Noah's family was with him on the ark.

One comment from the October 1, 2017 paper championed the "cause" of homosexuality by heralding the return of Will & Grace. Lawyer Tom Dyer wrote:

I agree with Vice President Joe Biden when he said, "I think Will & Grace did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far" (A17).

He went on to say that the show, which ran from 1998-2006 "brought recognizable gays and their friends into millions of living rooms." Hopefully, we can all say, "Not mine! And not this time around, either."

Former Vice President Biden would find a better education reading Genesis 19 because the only thoughts on the subject that are valid are God's Apparently, more Americans are adopting their morality from television than they are from the Scriptures. Initially, the medium sought to entertain citizens and inform them of the news. Now they clearly are trying to mold values and spin facts to their own viewpoint. [A recent example is that the New York Times had the information concerning Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment back in 2004—but held it for 13 years while he continued his evil practices.]

Christians cannot join lawyer Dyer in praising a program that has damaged America. All of those who took part in the first series, as well as those who take part in this series—from the actors to the writers to those who authorize the show to be aired—have their works recorded and shall be judged by them. They are among those who know not God, upon whom Jesus will take vengeance when He returns. They shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power" (2 Thess. 1:9). Repentance and obeying the gospel could yet save them, but what are the odds?

Paul mentions 23 specific sins in addition to homosexuality and then mentions those who know that such deeds are worthy of death, yet they "not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom. 1:29-32). It is as though two teams are competing. Christians are cheering on the righteous, and some of Orlando's leaders are praising the wicked. But it gets even worse.

Hugh Hefner

Most Americans probably know who Hugh Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was. He founded the infamous Playboy magazine in 1953, using pictures that had been taken of Marilyn Monroe four years earlier. He claimed that pornography was a freedom of speech issue, which is false, but no court seemingly ever had the desire to tell him so—to their shame.

One of our local "leaders," the president of the Central Florida Disability Chamber, could not restrain himself from heaping encomia upon the recently departed. He first referred to an interview that Hefner had with Larry King, who asked him what he wanted to be remembered for. The answer given was: "Someone who broke barriers for freedom of speech and civil rights." Try to resist your body's efforts to throw up. This is nothing more than high-sounding gobbledegook. Hefner will be remembered as a hedonist who influenced others to pursue the same course.

He may well be the reason why some men view women as only sex objects, such as Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, and others. Civil rights, seriously? He could not hold a candle to Martin Luther King, Jr. on a calm night without a breeze stirring. He effected change all right, but it was not the kind that Dr. King brought to society. That really did involve civil rights, and it was necessary. Society is vastly improved because of his efforts. How did Hefner's pornographic rag help anyone? None of Ted Bundy's victims will be thanking him (he was motivated, by his own admission, by Playboy-type magazines left at a garbage site). It may be that someone who passes out awards might list Hefner's name—but most people will not connect him with civil rights.

Rogue Gallert (perhaps an appropriate name) continued to praise Hefner as one who had "upended American social values." This statement is not accurate. What it should say is that Hefner "upended God's values which had been adopted by Americans since its founding." This is the truth of the matter, and it is easily proven. We could spend time citing definitions and discuss the Biblical terms of lewdness and lasciviousness, and that discussion would be profitable.

Instead, however, it should be acknowledged that pornography was illegal in our nation's history for about 150 years. This outlook came from the Bible. What Jesus taught on the subject is too simple to be misunderstood: "But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28). The Bible defines four types of adultery: literal (sex with someone to whom one is not married); spiritual (placing other gods before Jehovah); marital (unscriptural divorce and re-marriage) and this one—mental adultery.

Although the action only occurs in the mind (or heart), it is definitely a sin, or it could not be called adultery. Just as literal adultery would need to be repented of, so must it—even if it never leaves one's thoughts. God, our Creator, is the only one who can define sin. Rogue Gallert has no authority to pronounce an act either pure or impure. Jesus, who died on the cross for mankind's sins, ought to be given an infinite amount of credence over a mere corrupt mortal. (He is ungodly by his own words.)

So, a man lusting after a woman—not his wife—commits sin. But does the woman bear no guilt in the matter? She could be innocent if she dresses herself modestly; then the fault would lie entirely with the male. But when women appear without clothing in provocative poses for a magazine, what is the purpose? She knows that her appearance will cause a man to lust; so does the publisher; otherwise, what is the point? Right! Men buy it because of all the great articles in it. No doubt they ignore the glossy, air-brushed photos.

When the woman allows pictures to be taken of her and distributed, she too stands guilty of sin. She violates the command to be dressed in modest apparrel (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-4). Second, she violates the command not to be a stumbling block. Consider Matthew 18:6-7:

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!"

Or the woman. Any psychologist can explain that men are visually-oriented, which is the reason that pornography appeals to them. Any woman who is part of this industry and does not know the harm that her participation will bring about would have to be the most naïve female in the universe. Any woman who would deny that her actions are a stumbling block to cause men to lust is simply not being honest with herself.

"Hold on a minute. I don't force men to lust," a "model" might protest. "They want to do it; why shouldn't I make a profit from it?" Couldn't the same argument be made for prostitution? Men are indeed committing sin when they view pornography—or commit the actual act of adultery (or fornication, if single). But that does not dissolve the responsibility the other party has in making it possible. She is still a stumbling block who shall receive severe punishment.

Gallart concludes his comments briefly: "RIP, Hef. As a cultural icon, you live on." Rest in peace? Hah! Christians know that Hugh Hefner has already awakened, like the rich man Jesus described in Luke 16:23, "in torments." He may have already asked someone for water—and been denied. He may desire for someone to warn all his models of what awaits.

All such requests will be rejected. Everyone has access to the Word of God; these, however, choose to revel in the flesh and in debauchery; they had an experienced teacher. No rest remains in the future for Mr. Hefner. He received the reward he was looking for in this life, and it is all he will ever get. The enjoyment of a few moments has now given way to eternal damnation.

Hefner may indeed be a cultural icon, but that will not lessen his punishment; it will only make things worse. In fact, it would be more appropriate to say, the more he is given "credit" for changing things, the more he will die on. Everyone commits sin, and those who have no interest in repenting and changing their lives will be cast into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. However, some will suffer more than others because they did more harm to society.

Consider, for example, the man who lusts in his heart for a woman not his wife. It is sin, and needs to be repented of, but he did not harm anyone else (although it could harm his marriage). The one who provides the magazine has damaged who knows how many men and women, causing problems in their lives.

Some people no one would ever want to be on the Day of Judgment—Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and other mass murderers. Who, in his right mind, would want to be Charles Darwin, who continues to move young people away from God with his theory of evolution? How many might point an accusing finger toward him at the judgment as one who heavily influenced their decision to reject God? Who would want to be Madonna or others who persuade both women and men to be lascivious? The more who have influenced people for evil, the greater the punishment. Hefner will forever be dying on.

Wikipedia quoted two writers who were not as enthralled with Hefner and Playboy. They made accurate assessments of the dead and dying icon.

Writing for The Independent…English writer Julie Bindel stated that Hefner "caused immeasurable damage by turning porn—and therefore the buying and selling of women's bodies—into a legitimate business."

Missiologist Ed Stetzer lamented: It's hard to fathom that anyone would have known what this would have turned into. Parents growing up today are fighting to keep their children pure. Spouses are fighting to keep their marriages intact. And many enslaved and trapped in the adult entertainment industry have been figuratively and literally stripped not only of their clothes, but their very value as people made in the image of God. If this does not concern us, what will?

Apparently, it does not concern many people, or Hefner would not have been so lavishly praised in the Orlando Sentinel. He may be a hero to some, but he will stand forever in God's Hall of Shame.