If only Charles Darwin could have seen the future. How does the production and marketing of lingerie for men fit into Darwin’s belief that competition and natural selection are vital processes for species survival, particularly the species H. sapiens? The lingerie products of HommeMystere illustrate what philosopher David Stone called “Darwinism’s Dilemma”:
If Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species. 
No, human life consists of men putting on panties and bras and engaging in pillow fights with women who are too psychologically ruined to reject these men as inferior mates. The only “ruthless competition” going on here is the one between couples over who gets to wear the best lingerie. If Darwin could see this nonsense he would certainly be forced to disregard his theory of evolution as it pertains to the human race.
 David Stone, Darwinian Fairytales (New York: Encounter Books, 1995), p. 3.
Thou who didst come into the world in order to suffer, and who hast borne the heaviest of all sufferings, intensified still more in the heaviest of all pain, the measure in which it was freely accepted: the suffering of knowing in advance, from the first moment of Thy life, Thy constant power of avoiding it; Thou who hast suffered all Thy life and finally suffered an ignominious death, thanks be to Thee for having sanctified suffering, for having by Thy life and by Thy holy actions clarified for our happiness the meaning of that suffering which remains for natural man an eternal darkness. Thanks be to Thee, that the man who suffers shall never forget the great blessing which consoles and abundantly strengthens and brings the heavenly light of its explanation, but may he not have the presumption to forget the difference which gives humility, to forget that Thou hast suffered innocently for the guilty, or to forget this difference, which still consoles beyond all measure, that Thy death was our redemption. 
 Soren Kierkegaard, The Prayers of Kierkegaard, edited by Perry D. LeFevre (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 79.
It is easy to get trapped into the false belief that society can be turned around, or saved from its wretchedness. As our modern society glorifies more and more the attitudes described by Paul in his second letter to Timothy, [a] how are believers to respond? Pastor John MacArthur, as always, provides a straightforward and simple answer:
Can society itself be saved? Certainly not without full-scale revival. Unless multitudes turn to Christ, the downward spiral is certain to continue. With so many dampened consciences and hardened hearts, it would take a revival of unprecedented proportions to reverse the downward direction of our culture. The problems are spiritual and cannot be solved through politics or education. Christians who believe political activism can reverse the trends in our society do not understand the nature of the problem. True believers must realize that the state of our society is the result of the righteous judgment of God. God has not commissioned His people to reconstruct society. We are not called to expend our energies for moral reform. We are salt—a preservative for a decaying generation. [a] And we are lights designed to shine in a way that enables people who see our good works to glorify our heavenly Father. [b] In other words, our primary task is to preach the truth of God’s Word, live in obedience to that truth, and to keep ourselves unstained by the world. [c] Our influence on society must be the fruit of that kind of living, not the product of fleshly energy or political clout. 
 John MacArthur, Jr., The Vanishing Conscience (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994), p. 75.
[a] 2 Timothy 3:1-3; “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.”
[b] Matthew 5:13; “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.”
[c] Matthew 5:14-16; “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
[d] James 1:27; “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
With the amnesty debate returning, it is important to understand that this debate is not new. Amnesty is once again being sold as “comprehensive immigration reform,” a legislative package that includes a humane way to bring the millions of illegal “immigrants” (closer to 20 million, not 11 million) out of the shadows and a promise to strengthen the borders. President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and Congress already did this; and before Reagan, President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, opened the floodgates by signing into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Since Reagan was the last president to try amnesty, his brief speech at the signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, a bill that did not reform or control anything, is now relevant. It is posted below. And interestingly, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is actively involved in the most recent version of immigration reform along with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), is recognized by Reagan in the speech.
From November 6, 1986:
This bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, that I will sign in a few minutes is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. It’s the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings in the last three Congresses. Further, it’s an excellent example of a truly successful bipartisan effort. The administration and the allies of immigration reform on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle worked together to accomplish these critically important reforms to control illegal immigration.
In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people.
I would like to recognize a few of the public servants whose unflagging efforts have made this legislation a reality. Senator Alan Simpson, Congressman Dan Lungren, Chairman Peter Rodino, and Congressman Rom Mazzoli have long pursued and now have attained this landmark legislation. Important roles were played by Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Paul Simon, and Congressmen Ham Fish, Bill McCollum, Chuck Schumer, and many others in both Houses of the Congress and in both parties. Additionally, I would like to note the excellent efforts of members of my administration who have worked so hard over the last 6 years to make this bill signing possible today. The long list of those in the executive branch is headed by Attorneys General Edwin Meese and William French Smith, who with Immigration Commissioner Alan C. Nelson have contributed greatly to our efforts to pass meaningful immigration reform.
Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship. So, now I’ll get on with the signing and make this into law. Hope nothing happens to me between here and the table. [Laughter] And I got my names in the right order there. [Laughter]
The 1986 amnesty bill was a failure by most measures. The borders were not strengthened and there was no increase in the enforcement of immigration laws. Starting in 1990, just fours year later, the illegal immigration population began increasing by 500,000 per year, culminating in a total of 12 million by 2007, proving just how inept the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was.  Amnesty is about votes and not compassion, and it certainly is not about strengthening our borders. Democrats believe they can keep hold of the White House for decades by increasing the Latino/Hispanic population, politically exploiting this growing demographic like they have exploited blacks since the 1960s, and Republicans are desperate to put a bandage on the mortal wound of their own incompetence. The problem with the debate is this: We are not asking ourselves whether or not we should repeat the failures of our past, but how we are to go about repeating those failures. If we cannot learn from our mistakes, our nation has no future.
Pastor John MacArthur recently reiterated the link between marriage and societal health. Society will either honor marriage or defile it. The former bringing blessings and the later bringing judgment.
Marriage is a condition of life designed by God, ordained by God, and authenticated in an open, public covenant. It is the highest and noblest and best of all human relationships. No other human relationship is as wonderful as marriage. It is called in the Bible “the grace of life.” It is the most wonderful and most blessed of all common graces. And we talk about common grace. What we mean by that is a grace gift from God to all people without regard to whether they believe in Him. That’s a common grace. And of all the common graces—the beauty of the world, a sunset, sleep, health, a good meal, falling in love—of all the common graces, the epitome of common graces is marriage. It is the best gift that God can give to humanity in general without regard to whether they know Him at all. Any society that honors marriage, any society that elevates marriage—a life-long commitment openly; a covenant made and kept between a man and a woman who rear children in the bond of that love—any society that honors marriage will be blessed temporally. It will prosper. It will be safe. It will be secure. It will know peace. It will have a minimum of crime…
On the other hand, any society that fails to honor marriage as a covenant, open covenant between a man and a woman for life, in which children are reared and cared for; any society that diminishes marriage, that fails to honor marriage, is corrupt, is doomed to chaos, turmoil, evil and judgment. Where marriage for life is not honored, where the covenant vows between a man and a woman are not kept, immorality abounds. Immorality overruns the culture, delinquency overruns the culture. 
 John MacArthur, “The Beginning of Miracles,” Grace To You online, December 9, 2012, Sermon Code: 43-8.
Another year has passed, O Heavenly Father! We thank Thee that it was a time of grace, and we are not terrified by the thought that it was also a time for which we shall render an account; for we trust in Thy mercy. The New Year confronts us with its demands; and though we cannot enter upon it without humility and concern, because we cannot and will not forget the lusts of the eye that ensnared us, the sweets of revenge that seduced us, the wrath that made us irreconcilable, the coldness of heart in which we fled from Thee, yet we do not enter it altogether empty-handed. For we take with us the memory of fearful doubts which were set at rest, of anxieties which were solaced, of the downcast mind which was cheered and strengthened, of the glad hope which was not put to shame. Aye, and when in our melancholy moods we seek strength and encouragement in the thought of great men, Thy chosen instruments, who in sharp trials and profound anxieties kept their souls free, their courage unbroken, the heavens open above them, then we wish also to add to theirs our testimony, convinced that even if our courage is but discouragement in comparison with theirs, and our strength weakness, nevertheless, Thou art ever the same, the same mighty God who tires the spirits of men in combat, the same Father without whose knowledge no sparrow falls to the ground, Amen. 
 Soren Kierkegaard, The Prayers of Kierkegaard, edited by Perry D. LeFevre (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 113.
I am finished with politics, not as an informed voter, although a complete self-removal from the electorate sounds appealing, but as a believer in political activism as a conduit for moral reform. As a Christian, I am disturbed by the secular culture that surrounds me and often feel compelled to do something about it. Politics is an attractive venue for this, particularly in a democracy where freedom allows for dissent, but Jesus Christ did not get involved in politics, nor did he reform the depraved Roman culture. If I am to follow Jesus, politics cannot be my realm.
It has taken several years for me to get to this point, often stumbling over the false belief that cultural depravity could be reversed with the right political ideology. This belief has caused me to read stacks of books on topics like conservatism, liberalism, feminism, progressivism, classism, and racism; nearly every kind of “ism” associated with politics and culture. I wanted to fight. In essence, I was addicted to the false premise of the Christian Right, that a sinful society can be reformed by sinful men through political activism. I was wrong.
The effectiveness of using political arguments to proselytize in secular world where there is no such thing as a single, objective moral law is minimal. Christians who engage in political activism, whether as a blogger, professional pundit, or campaign operative, should take a step back, as I did, and assess the net benefit of their actions. What is the benefit of seeking a legislative ban on abortion when millions of Americans do not consider the act of aborting fetuses immoral behavior? Why fight the erosion of decency in the media when Americans are obsessed with sex and intrigued by violence? The same thing can be said of homosexual marriage as more Americans, particularly younger Americans, consider it normal. “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:18) Sin has become relative, and pushing moral absolutes through political activism is always going to be rendered as intolerance. Just ask the Republican Party.
The tireless efforts of organizations like the Christian Coalition of America, Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America to “bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy” is a total waste of time and money. Biblical principles need to be brought into the individual lives of Americans, not public policy. Pastor John MacArthur makes this perfectly clear:
Our goal is not to impact our culture by creating traditional values, family values through legislation or judicial process. Our goal is not to make sure that the United States of America adheres to a national policy that equates to biblical morality. That is not our goal. We are not involved in altering social morality. We are not involved in upgrading cultural conduct. We are interested in people becoming saved. That is our only agenda. If we’re going to change our culture we’re going to change it from the inside out. 
I understand the passion Christians have towards combating moral depravity, and the constant frustration in watching it flourish, but no amount of legislation and law can eradicate the sins inflicting man, because men are “by nature children of wrath.” (Ephesians 2:3) If God wanted the culture to be pure and sinless, He could make it so in an instant, but He obviously does not. “For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” (2 Timothy 3:1-4)
The solution for societal depravity and cultural decline has already been implemented. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The time has come for Christians to stop engaging in futility.
 John MacArthur, “The Christian’s Responsibility In A Pagan Society, Part 1,” Grace To You online, July 18, 1993, Sermon Code: 56-23