Our Lord, we thank you for your meeting with us this morning. Please keep Pastor Mallon safe as he goes to his place for lunch and travels back to Pennsylvania. We pray that you will let us gird up the loins of our minds for this class that we have now. We pray in Christ's wonderful name. Amen. Amen. Okay. You should have your books. Thank you again to Joe Matone for the purchase of the, anybody else need a book? John, there you go. There's more, there's a whole box of them here. Remember that the book that this is an abridgment of is called The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. to which our response needs to be, you're not God, but God is. And that's really what needs to be said in response. So we're in chapter four of Strange New World, but let me give you this review, and you're going to see now how all these things connect today to bring us to the present day. Remember that ideas are like viruses, okay? And you don't often know where a virus comes from. You don't have to know the names of these people, but you still get the virus, okay? And you need antibodies in order for your body to fight. the fight the viruses, and that's, as the class proceeds, that's what we'll be doing. Okay, so let's deal with some of the ideas that are like viruses. People may not know the names, but you see how the virus infects us. The Enlightenment, which is not a good term for it, which is basically a development in the 1700s, 1800s. Enlightenment, man is the measure of all things. It was a shift from the Reformation influence on God is the one that we're to study. So names we covered last time, Rene Descartes, 17th century, I think, therefore I am. And this is a very important change now from the object, which was God and his world, to the subject, which is me. Okay, so that's pivotal to understand where we're going. And then in the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, feelings are central to who or what we are. That led the way to what was called Romanticism in the 1800s, but feelings are central to who or what we are. Then your next influential thinker, there were others but these are all connected in various ways, 19th century Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a materialist and his emphasis was on economics, but the point was for Marx everything is political. We're not dealing with spiritual things, we're not dealing with religious things. For Marx, religion was the opiate of the people. But basically, everything's about politics and struggle within the social order, which is what Marxism's all about. And the last one we covered the last time, Friedrich Nietzsche. And Nietzsche asked this question, why does religion exist? if everything's material, if the Enlightenment has basically ruled out God, so why does religion, why does religion persist? Let's see, get a little bit noisy here. I hope you can still follow. Hey folks in the kitchen, could He's such a captivating guy, I don't blame him for chatting with him, but all right, we'll pay attention here. Okay, so Nietzsche, why does religion exist? And he said, there's a need to break free of the myths that religion weaves and shatter the moral codes that keep us from being strong and truly free. I want to repeat that again. We've got myth, religion is myths woven together, and you've got to shatter the moral codes that keep us from really being strong, really being free, really being superman, as he would have put it, ubermensch, the overman, okay? So that idea actually underlay Nazism, which we'll come back to a bit later. Okay, today, chapter four. Listen to the title of the chapter. Sexualizing Psychology and Politicizing Sex. The two characters are going to deal with the first one, sexualizing psychology. Who do you think is in view here? Who is the guru of modern psychology? First name is Sigmund. Freud. Sigmund Freud. Yep. Sigmund Freud. Sexualizing psychology. The other name you've probably not heard of. His last name is Reich. Politicizing sex. Now, Well Ellie, you're still old enough that you're old enough that you can take the kind of thing we're going to be dealing with here right now Okay, we're because we're dealing with sexual relations. I cannot overstate this Sexual intimacy is the most holy place or is often called the holy of holies of human relationships Sexual intimacy is the most holy place, the holy of holy, of human relationships. When you deal with sexual relations, you're dealing with something sacred. I don't mean sacred like the Lord's Supper, but sacred in terms of human relationships. Now let me give you three texts. Okay, 1 Corinthians chapter six. and verses 15 to 20, and you'll see how important this is. The last text will give you the reason why sexual intimacy is the holy of holies in human relationships. First Corinthians chapter six and verses six, 15 to 20. Do you not know that your bodies, speaking to Christians here, are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never. Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For as it is written, the two will become one flesh. but he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body, which does put sexual relations in a particular category. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price, so glorify God in your body. Ephesians 5 verses 1 to 14. Ephesians chapter 5 verses 1 to 14. Therefore, after saying we should live lives of thanks, as we heard this morning, be imitators of God as beloved children, particularly in forgiving one another, and walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God, but sexual immorality in all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you as is proper among saints." Now clearly it doesn't say, don't mention the name of it, but this is not common stuff that you speak of. You don't make jokes about this. You don't treat it lightly. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking which are out of place, but instead, like the message today, let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous, that is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. And incidentally, coveting, remember, coveting really begins as a feeling. It's a drive, it's a desire for something, as there's a sexual drive. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things, the wrath of God, and it's a present tense, comes upon the sons of disobedience. And that wrath of God comes by God giving people up to their own lusts. Therefore, don't become partners with them, for at one time you were darkness. But now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light, for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true. And try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. He's largely speaking here about sexual things. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says, Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. And then the last text, which comes to the nerve of why sexual intimacy is the holy of holies of human relationships, in Ephesians chapter 5, in the most remarkable statement about marriage, Ephesians chapter 5 and verses 31 to 33. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, which Paul has quoted in 1 Corinthians 6. This mystery, the mystery of sexual union, is profound. And I'm saying it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself and let the wife see that she respects her husband. The reason why the sexual intimacy in which the two become one flesh is the holy of holies in human relationships. It is by design to represent the union of Christ and his church, all right? So there's your biblical framework, as we want to give each week for what we cover. In human relationships, nothing is more sacred than sexual intimacy, which raises the question How on earth did we get to where we are today in which it's so different, okay? So we're going to look at two figures. The first one we've mentioned, he lived in the ministry, his teaching was basically the early 20th century, Sigmund Freud. And more than one person has commented that it's the wrong verb in Freud. It shouldn't be an E, but an A. Freud knew himself, he was a marketer. And he knew how to market psychology so that it piqued people's interest. And there's even statements where he admitted himself a lot of this stuff was bogus. But anyway, that's in Paul Johnson's book, The Intellectuals. Anyway, Sigmund Freud, basically what Freud said is morality at root is a convention. It's something that's just developed by society. Morality is acquired cultural practices, if you will. They are not part of a larger, objective, moral structure. Regardless of what Freud believed about religion. We'll get to that in a moment He rejected the idea. This is large moral structure again Basically, he's not a materialist because he believes in something like a soul but but but the dynamics of our existence Aren't above us. They are within us is the idea going back going back to Rousseau and man's feelings and now Freud had an evolutionary view of history. And basically, that view of history is called the dialectic. And you have something that exists in a culture, and then something either resists it, or opposes it, or challenges it. And in a Marxist view, or even an evolutionary view, there's kind of a struggle, okay? And then out of that thesis and then an antithesis comes a synthesis, which becomes essentially the thesis of a culture, and that's the way culture develops. So it's really an evolutionary view about history, and Freud held that. So, he said what is not quote-unquote conventional brings a sense of disgust. it brings a sense of rejection, which for Freud was not rational, that's just the way we thought about things in our culture. So to quote him, this is page 77 in the book, he says, and this is pivotal to understand Freud, primitive man, primitive people, again he believed in evolution, was better off in knowing no restrictions of instinct. Kind of like Rousseau, the noble savage, okay? To counterbalance this, his prospects of enjoying this happiness for any length of time were very slender. Civilized man has exchanged a portion of his possibilities of happiness for a portion of security. For Freud, happiness was the big desire. So what Freud said is sex, for Freud, is foundational to human happiness. Happiness is basically seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. And Freud even spoke of what he called the genital pleasure that is derived from sex that he regards as a fundamental form of happiness. And you cannot overstate this, whatever else you get out of Freud. Human flourishing for Freud is virtually synonymous with sexual fulfillment. And so you see the development. You go from the focus on the I, first person singular, to feelings, political revolution's going to come in next, and the breaking free of all moral restraints that come from religion. So for Freud, if you're going to get that human fulfillment, then, well, that human fulfillment has got to come with sexual fulfillment. Now that brings up the big question for Freud, Why were there social restrictions on sexual behavior? Well, he said morality is, at root, is an acquired cultural practice. It's a convention. Again, it's not part of a larger objective moral structure. But then he added, what is not conventional brings that sense of disgust that we read about on page 77 in the book. It brings a revulsion. So, if people just give in to their sexual desires, that's going to lead to social chaos, according to Freud. You're going to have people doing things that repulse other individuals. And therefore, society places restrictions on sexual desire by civilizational or cultural morality. Therefore, guilt and shame are internalized. They still feel a sense of guilt and shame, but you internalize it. But that's necessary if we're going to function together in society without people basically doing whatever they want sexually, okay? And so for Freud, that's what religion's all about. Religion has a way of reigning people in so they don't give in to their baser instincts, we would say, in sexual matters. Here, though, for Freud, is the drawback. And he actually wrote a whole book about this called Civilization and its Discontents. This requires the frustration of natural sexual instincts. And for Freud, this is why we have culture, whether it's art or music or sports or even religion, this is a redirecting of our sexual energies to something else. Because he did recognize that if people are just given over to orgies, you're going to have a mess in a culture. So there was the way he answered Nietzsche, you've got to have religion in order to reign people in, but there's always going to be that discontentment because their sexual desires are being frustrated. Now, how then do sexual moral codes, how did they become a political football? This stuff remained in the counseling rooms for decades because of Freud's influence. How did it become such a political issue? Well, there's a man who lived in the East Serda, he died in 1957, Wilhelm Reich, who was German, who witnessed the rise of Hitler and abominated it because he was a communist, he was a Marxist. He held that dialectical view of history where you've got an establishment and you've got to overthrow that establishment or try to and it brings in something else. That's a Marxist view of history. Now he agreed with Freud in this regard. For Wilhelm Reich, sexual codes don't just maintain civilization, but as he saw it, because he was a Marxist, okay, he agreed with Freud, sexual codes do maintain civilization, but he saw it more. it also forwarded, it also empowered a bourgeois, what we would call an upper class, okay, you have the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and the proletariat for the Marxists, the common people, a bourgeois, middle class, capitalist culture under authoritarian leadership. Reich, who did not like, it's interesting, he was a Marxist, But he didn't like what we would call fascism or Nazism. But this is what he saw. He saw in the German Republic in the 1800s a very strong authoritarian state, which he didn't like. And his view was that authoritarian state was empowered by authoritarian families and it empowered authoritarian families. And frankly, he saw a lot of that kind of harshness as he did in his own family life. And so he said that sexual codes don't just maintain civilization, but they empower this bourgeois middle-class capitalist culture under authoritarian leadership. Now remember, he's watching the rise of Adolf Hitler, okay, and he sees this man as an embodiment of the kind of established And Hitler supposedly supported the family, he promoted the family, and he saw this as empowering an evil state that in fact would rise up in Germany. And that brought a suspicion at best. of what we would call the traditional family, if not an actual opposition. Incidentally, Reich was a medical doctor, and so he saw this in medical terms. It brought a suspicion, or a criticism at least, of the traditional family as the norm. So, get ready for this. 1936. Now we're looking at, what, 86 years ago. He writes a book called The Sexual Revolution, which you can still get. I don't recommend it, incidentally. In which he says sexual repression is not necessary for civilization. This is where he parts company with Freud. we need to dismantle the sexual codes that perpetuate the authoritarian family and state. He sees this as part of the Marxist revolution, is to oppose sexual repression. Now, in page 83 in the book, I put, before Dr. Truman said it down at the bottom, I put the word prophetic in my margins when I read this. This is the 1930s. The Free Society, wrote Reich, will provide ample room and security for the gratification of natural, spell that, sexual needs. Although he meant more than that. Whether it's eating and drinking or sex or whatever, that's a natural need. The free society will provide ample room and security for the gratification of natural needs. Thus, it will not only not prohibit a love relationship between two adolescents of the opposite sex, but it will give it all manner of social support. Sound familiar? Such a society will not only not prohibit the child's masturbation, but on the contrary will probably conclude that any adult who hinders the development of the child's sexuality should be severely dealt with. Doesn't that sound exactly like today, right? This is what doctors are being told, but there's more that Reich writes. The existence of strict moral principles has invariably signified that the biological and specifically the sexual needs of man were not being satisfied. Every moral regulation is in itself sex-negating and all Compulsory morality is life-negating. Because remember, for Freud and for Reich, sexuality is basically the heart of what we are. The social revolution, he's a Marxist, has no more important task than finally to enable human beings to realize their full potentialities and find gratification in life. Now later, I won't read the whole thing, he basically says this, you impose sexual moral codes on people and you are destroying their lives. Now, do you see how things have gone 180 degrees? The Scriptures say, you give vent to promiscuity and your sexual life, and the wrath of God abides on you. He's saying, no, no, no, no, you destroy people if you inhibit them. Now, this is Dr. Truman's comment following the Reich quotation. The implications of this are dramatic. For example, It turns on its head the traditional notion of education as the means by which the individual is formed by institutional authority to curb natural instincts in order to become an adult member of society. By contrast, Reich, he would say, this is Rousseau with a sexual twist The authentic person is the sexual being, the one guided by the inner voice of sexualized nature. And the role of education is not to repress that for the purpose of personal formation, but to liberate it for the purpose of self-expression. Now again, all you've got to read is what's happening in so many public school classrooms. And that is exactly what you're seeing today. Now let's go back to this, and we're almost done, and I know you're going to have your questions. So what he's saying here, and so he writes in here, this is from his book, The Sexual Revolution, sexual codes must be shattered if human beings are to be truly free, kind of like Nietzsche's idea, and he was influenced, again, fellow Germans. And then sexual codes, he would say, must become crucial political issues. Why? Well, because the state imposes this morality on people, and therefore, if you're going to change it, it has to become a political issue. Now, here's what I want to do. This takes me, because you've got the book now, I'm going to let you read the rest. Dr. Truman deals with the changing nature of political oppression, and there's a little bit more about Wilhelm Reich in here, but I want you to read that in his conclusions at the end of Chapter 4. But let me wrap it up this way. Okay, the issue then is not today, the legitimization of homosexuality, or whatever you want, fill in the blank, okay? It's rather challenging the very nature or the legitimacy of any sexual code. That's the issue. No sexual code should be imposed upon people. And this is not surprising. But already people are making the argument for polyandry, having various lovers, polygamy, having a number of marriages, and as gross as this is, being able to be married to your pet. And we look at this and we say, this is insanity. And people say, no, this is my sexual desire. And if you, now here's the thing, you go ahead and you restrain me, or you say this is illegal, you're attacking the very heart of what it is for me to be a human being. That's why these legal issues are before us, including before the Supreme Court. So it's not just, quote-unquote, tolerating, a person's identity, quote-unquote, as a sexual being, but also affirming, supporting, and encouraging it, or you are, Reich's words, oppressing and negating and destroying life. That's in his book, The Sexual Revolution. Now, as I said, people don't have to know where the virus came from to have the virus. But we got that virus big time in our culture. Now, there's antibodies that we should be getting out in the church. And let me just end with this. This has, as you'd imagine, profound implications, one, for religious practice. If I, in a sermon, give God's own condemnation, which I hope I never do harshly, but God's own condemnation of perversion, I, who am supposed to be a minister of life, in our culture, I'm destroying life. See what you're dealing with? So it has profound implications for religion. It also has profound implications for speech in the workplace. That's what we're going to deal with next week.