The New Paganism — Monomakhos

In ancient times paganism and sexual immorality worked hand in hand. It’s hard to know which influenced the other more but it is certain that Christianity, like the Judaism before it, could not have flourished without a moral code that directed and channeled sexual energy in ways that the surrounding pagan culture would perceive as a censure and challenge.

Christianity drew from the Jewish Scripture. The Holiness Code of Leviticus limited sexual behaviors by essentially defining which relationships were prohibited and which were not. Our age invariably reads the prohibitions is what could loosely be called “Puritanical” terms, as if they dealt with the behaviors alone. Moses knew better. Yahwism would falter and collapse if the Israelites adopted the licentiousness of their pagan neighbors. The God of Abraham would be reduced to a fertility god or other ancient deity rendering His self-revelation mute and the forthcoming salvation impossible. That’s why prophets like Elijah stood against the priests of Ba’al regardless of the threats of the morally corrupt Jezebel for example. That’s why the Prophetic message always won out in the end, even if the Prophets themselves were persecuted.

In our day, it works from the opposite direction. Sexual activists challenge the Christianity (and the Judaism that a robust Christianity protects) that declares that licentiousness is decay. Homosexual activism is one obvious example, although certainly not the only one. It has laid to ruin once prominent assemblies like the Episcopal Church and will diminish other mainstream denominations such as the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) in short order.

If you doubt that sexual behavior and religion are related, we need to go no further than San Francisco, perhaps the next best thing to Gomorrah we’ve got going. Recently, the city council passed a resolution banning circumcision, calling it Male Genital Mutilation (MGM). Their target was observant Jews who practice circumcision. Proponents of the ban created a comic-book series with a character named Foreskinman. Look at the anti-Semitic tropes: the virile, blond, blue-eyed hero with the uber Muslims get a pass. Foreskinmann doesn’t dare challenge the Imams who also circumcise Muslim boys but then we don’t live in a culture built on Muslim morality. (Having said that, I doubt we ever will see Foreskinman staying the hand of Insidious Imam as he gets ready to remove the foreskin of baby Abdullah.) This shows us that the problem is not really about circumcision at all because all agree that there is no medical necessity for circumcision in the first place. Instead religious freedom is derided, specifically the religious freedom of people who believe in the God Who calls all men to account.