Several years ago some of the “advice” columns in the newspapers began to deteriorate as it pertains to the quality and the soundness of the opinions given. No improvements have been made over the past decade. Consider this advice from ”Dear Abby” on Wednesday, July 22nd.
The advice-seeker stated the problem in terms that were easy to understand. He and his wife visit certain friends three states away two times a year. They plan the trips well in advance; so their hosts know when they will be there. During the last three visits, their friends hosted a “swingers” party. The first time they were mortified and thought it was a joke. After being loosened up with a few rounds of drinks, the guests began to pair up with someone other than the spouses they came with and left for different rooms in the house. One attendee came on to the writer’s wife. They were not interested in participating in the swapping business, but they did not want to lose these people as friends.
Abby’s advice was to schedule the visits on a time other than Saturday (when these “parties” take place) and to plan for a specific event (such as dinner or a movie). If necessary, they could leave before Saturday. Apparently, “wisdom” such as this is based on the notion that no one is to be judgmental. Following is my response to the man who wrote for counsel.
Dear “Satisfied”: What is the matter with you? Have you never heard of the words indignant or outraged? The first time this happened you should have walked out of their home and made other arrangements for housing that evening and spoken to them about it the next day. You actually sat around while a pack of degenerates were committing adultery with each other in various rooms of the house? Doesn’t that seem “sick” to you? And then you endured the same thing twice more? What does it take to offend you? You didn’t even leave when someone propositioned your wife? Hello!
What kind of tie to these people do you have that you are willing to tolerate their immoral behavior? Have you talked to them at all about this gross immorality or quoted to them Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge”? Being in torment forever is not worth the paltry pleasure this lewd and lascivious behavior brings those people.
They have a lot of their own “friends” now, and they don’t need you any more. The fact that they keep scheduling these orgies during the times you visit them is a clue that they have a higher priority than your friendship (or perhaps they want you to participate with them). My advice to you is to find new friends—ones who have values more in line with yours. If they were truly your friends, they would respect you more than what they have demonstrated—GWS.
A week later (July 29) the advice on another issue was no better. This time a woman wrote about a problem with her sister who two years previously had set up college funds for her three children; the amounts now total more than $25,000 for each child. Through a strange turn of events she discovered that her sister was able to afford such generous gifts because her actual occupation is that of a porn star. She no longer wishes to receive gifts from her sister and wants to return the college fund money. Her husband, however, disagrees with her and thinks they ought to keep the money because they will probably not be able to afford college for their children, otherwise. She asks if they should return the money and if doing so would cause a rift between her and her sister.
Abby said the rift would probably ensue and that she should keep the money. Although this is bad advice, her rationale is worth looking at—as an example of the ways people try to justify sin. How sad that covetousness trumps decency!
The first reason was that returning the money would make it appear that she was rejecting her sister. So? What about her sister having rejected all the decent and wholesome values she was taught as a child? What about her rejection of the moral principles taught in the Scriptures? Besides, if she cannot understand that her “profession” is being rejected—not her as a person—then so be it. The fact that she had not been upfront about her source of income and that it had to be discovered by a bizarre set of circumstances indicates that she realizes that others would not approve.
The second excuse for keeping the money is that her children should not be penalized because she does not approve of her sister’s lifestyle. Refusing the money does not constitute penalizing the children. What if her sister had stolen the money from an armored car and donated the same amount to the children? Would refusing it under those circumstances be penalizing the children? What if a family member was part of a mafia organization that shook down business owners? If she was the wife of one of those men, would it be all right to take the money? “Of course not,” someone might say, “but those are illegal activities.” Yes, they are, and committing fornication in front of a camera is an immoral one. Are man’s laws higher than God’s laws? As long as the activity is legal, is that the determination? It’s all right to receive money donations from an abortionist, since his murdering of infants is “legal”? Or is it still blood money?
Would it be all right to accept a gift from Judas with the money he made betraying Christ? Is the sister not betraying God, who gave her life, and breath, and all things? At least one church has refused to receive a gift from someone who won the lottery. Was the congregation being penalized when that gift was refused?
The way to look at the matter is this: the children are being spared embarrassment. Imagine a group of students comparing notes on financing: “I got a scholarship in order to come here.” “I’ve got a student loan, and my parents are helping me, too.” “My aunt is a porn star, and she’s footing the bill for me to be here.” How proud the children would be! A gift can be accepted or rejected. It cannot be considered a penalty when a gift is refused if there is a sufficient reason for the rejection. Besides, what is wrong with young people working to help pay for their education?
The previous rationale implies a third point—that the letter-writer was punishing her children because of something she personally disapproved of. How sad that pornography has made such inroads in America that many view it as a legitimate industry now. Many Americans now watch such movies frequently. The fact is that pornography remains an offense against a holy God, and society is only fooling itself into thinking that it is all right. Our laws have grown weak, and our hearts have turned lascivious in order to accept such outrageous behavior. We are on the path to Genesis 6:5 and need to come to our senses. Better counsel from columnists would be helpful.
The fourth point insults the writer. Abby tells her that her husband is being pragmatic while she is being emotional. Even if this statement were true, it would not necessarily be an indictment of the woman or an endorsement of her husband. While being pragmatic often is the right thing to do, it certainly is not always. It would be pragmatic to receive money in all the immoral and ungodly circumstances previously described, but it would not be right. Jesus came to offer a better way than pragmatism. He spoke of treating others the way we would want them to treat us, which involves love but not pragmatism.
Several years ago, two Christians applied for the same job. When one was asked what he thought about the other applicant, he said, “If you hire him, you will have hired a good man.” It might have been more practical to list a fault or two, but he answered honestly and lovingly. It would have been more practical and less painful for Jesus not to come to earth and die on the cross for our sins, but He acted out of love instead.
Was the advice-seeker reacting emotionally? Possibly, but she could also have arrived at the conclusion logically. Emotion is not wrong or dangerous if it is based upon knowledge and truth (consider the wrath of God, for example)—and kept under control. But we have no evidence that the woman did not reason the situation through first. The fact that she took the time to write a letter demonstrates that she first weighed the pros and cons of her actions.
Fifth, that money has already been earned. The same thing could be said if the woman was a professional assassin; the issue is not that it was earned, but rather how it was earned.
In the sixth place, Abby says, “You are not going to change your sister.” And how does she know that? In the time of Christ there were prostitutes that gave up their profession because of the gospel of Christ. It is possible that people do things that they abhor doing—for very pragmatic reasons—namely, money. Some are forced into doing what they do; others say they are prevented from quitting, as Linda Lovelace insisted was the case with her. Some might need encouragement from a friend or loved one. Who is in the best position to bring about change in her—a sister or a total stranger?
A seventh bit of advice is to love her for the generous and caring aunt she is trying to be. Apparently, it has not occurred to Abby that sometimes people often give away money in an attempt to provide relief for their consciences. Quite often, some celebrity whom all would least expect is giving away money to an animal shelter or donating money to some worthy cause—when what made them famous was moral corruption and pollution—which often resulted in causing young people to walk in their evil ways. Some may do so just to counteract their public image; others may be experiencing a sense of guilt. In either case, when people accept their gifts, they feel validated.
For that reason a polite refusal is in order; a short (but not hostile) explanation may challenge them to think about their actions. Why would the sister (or anyone else) ever be motivated to re-examine her life when everyone accepts her just the way she is? People are so committed these days to being non-judgmental that practically no one is rebuked any more unless it is for standing up for what is true and right.
It would have been disappointing not to have heard the eighth argument from “Abby.” Her final admonition was to allow the money “to be used for something positive.” Some brethren have used this pragmatic approach, also. When some children’s homes or educational institutions have been asked why they accept money from liberal churches, they have answered, “The devil’s had that money long enough; it’s time to put it to good use.”
The problem is that the Bible teaches that giving is a matter of fellowship (Phil. 4:15-18). A number of years ago, a person who had been withdrawn from put a check in the collection plate (there had been no repentance). It was returned to him. On another occasion, a woman had been withdrawn from, and she too began to put checks into the collection plate. She too had not repented, and they were returned to her. The pragmatic approach is, “Let the money do some good,” but the acceptance of the gift constitutes endorsement of the one who gave it.
God has been known to refuse what people offered Him: “I have no pleasure in you,” says the Lord of hosts, “Nor will I accept an offering from your hands” (Mal. 1:10). Oh, dear. Was that emotional and not pragmatic? On another occasion God called those who had returned from captivity “rulers of Sodom” and the “people of Gomorrah.” Then He declared that He wanted no fellowship with them until they repented:
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” says the Lord…. “When you come to appear before Me…bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure the iniquity of the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean…” (Isa. 1:11-16).
If God were pragmatic, He would take worship where He could get it, but He has standards. He refuses to accept worship, including gifts, from those who are impure and unclean. How refreshing! Now admittedly, we do not always have the information that God has access to, since He knows the hearts and minds of all, but in the instances of the “swingers” and the sister who was making pornographic movies, we have quite enough information to make a righteous judgment.
So what advice should be given to the woman in place of the eight points that Abby gave her? How about the response provided below?
Dear “G-Rated Sister”: You are in an unenviable position, but this awkward situation was not caused by you. You are the one who is faced with figuring out an appropriate response.
Of course, you are uncomfortable receiving money earned from immoral conduct, and in this instance you should not be forced to go against your instincts just because it would be financially rewarding to your family.
Tell your sister that you will always love her but that you cannot condone her “occupation” because she is shaming herself and her family. She is encouraging other young women to follow in her footsteps and contributing to the decline of morality in this nation. Tell her you are calling her attention to these facts because you love her and want to see her change.
Explain to her that you do not feel right accepting gifts that were earned from her immoral acts and that you will be praying for her to leave that lifestyle.
She may not react to your frankness well at first, but give her time to digest what you are telling her. If she knows that you genuinely care for her, it may just make a difference. If she rejects you as a busybody and a self-righteous snob, at least you will know that the rift occurred because you stood for what’s right—GWS.
It is time for Christians to quit kowtowing to the non-judgmental crowd. They do not care if people know about their immoralities; why should we, as followers of Jesus, be embarrassed to declare our stand in behalf of morality? If “friends” can brazenly invite their guests to enjoy an evening of mate-swapping, why should Christians be afraid to say that such a thing is sinful and disgusting?
If people are going to engage in or watch the acts of fornication and seek acceptance for such practices, why cannot Christians point out that such things offend their Creator? God told the wicked in Psalm 50:18: “When you saw a thief, you consented with him, and have become a partaker with adulterers.” Some people may not be involved, but they do not oppose evil, either. One becomes a partaker with such by his approval and lack of opposition.
Christians are past due in saying things, such as, “I cannot condone that,” “God does not approve of such things,” or “I cannot partake or have fellowship in such ungodly activities.” How did Sodom or any city or nation get to be so thoroughly perverted? Was the reason that people were too intimidated to speak up? All Christians probably have a few moments that they wish they could do over, but it cannot happen. We might learn from past silences and be prepared to speak the next time. Often, others will agree but do not want to be the first one to speak, but if not, somebody still needs to tell the truth.