And the Walls Come Tumbling Down …

Greece has defaulted on its debt to capitalist democracy. And the U. S. Supreme Court has now effectively dismantled pivotal underpinnings of western civilization by declaring same sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

What does this all mean for those who call themselves Christians in this 21st century removed from the Christ’s sojourn on this earth? Four observations:

1) Going forward, marriage will be defined by cultural whims du jour, rather than by what were once perceived as moral absolutes. Hold on to your seat belt for the agendas of polygamy, marriage between blood relatives, adult-youth liaisons, relations with non-humans (from the animal to robotic kingdoms) to periodically surface – for freedom of choice and equal rights under the law. Some (perhaps most) won’t make it far in our lifetime; others may surprise.

2) This drift to moral relativism continues to be driven by global technology promising even more startling cultural and political transformation in the decades ahead. It all began with the “pill,” for the first time disconnecting sex from procreation. In the years ahead, it may become possible to order up the right partner doing the things loved most as sex slave ex machina. And child-birth will bear less and less relationship to parentage – whether from purchased embryos or cloning a la Dolly the ewe. Who will make the decisions of what is acceptable versus out-of-bounds? And, for how long?

3) Those who have persecuted in the name of Christ will now get a taste of their own medicine. Expect followers of the way to garner little respect through the turmoil ahead – for two reasons:
a) The biblical case against homosexuality is overstated. There is no record of Jesus having anything to say (pro or con) on the subject. However, he clearly railed against divorce – a vice practiced all too often by those professing Christianity as well as those of other persuasions.
b) Like some of other faiths, Christians have spent the better part of 1,700+/- years devouring their own. When there is no love between fellow travelers, what can one expect from those further from the fold?

4) Bottom, line, marriage has a future only to the degree that the product can be demonstrated superior in a marketplace of ever more diverse and often personally satisfying alternatives. Those who espouse the heterosexual way can retake competitive ground only by living lives that yield demonstrable benefits for marriage versus the myriad of other lifemode options now available and preferred. Frankly put, same sex lifestyles are those with the sizzle today. Heterosexual relationships increasingly feel old-school, dull, and dissatisfying. We’ll know marriage is on its way back when lifelong, monogamous heterosexuals again emerge as the heroes rather than the doormats of the show.

For a more in-depth biblical reflection on an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling of two years past on same-sex marriage, see

And for a tour of our full web site, click


4 responses to “And the Walls Come Tumbling Down …

  1. Shame on you for not knowing the truth…Our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ does in fact “not” condone gay anything…being gay is an abomination to GOD!!!…it completely poisons the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, to then have children and then raise them correctly in the law of GOD…what is so difficult to understand?…repent before it is too late…The Bible is the only truth in this world…it has been proven true again and again for several thousand years…embrace Jesus Christ as your LORD and Savior now, and turn away from this satanic gay agenda…it’s polluting everything that GOD created…Jesus Christ is waiting…He’ll never forsake you if you choose Him…

    • I am not aware of any statement ever made by Jesus with regard to gay marriage in the gospels of the New Testament — whether pro or con. If you know of such a statement, please provide a citation – by book, chapter and verse.

      • ROMANS 1God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
        18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

        24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

        26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

  2. On its face, the passage in Romans 1 appears as probably the strongest statement in the New Testament in opposition to gay relationships. However, this is tempered by the following observations:
    1) The translation cited is stretched. For example, the term “vile passions” is better translated as “dishonorable passions or affections” – certainly not an endorsement by Paul but not as harsh.
    2) One can question whether Paul’s condemnation was for: a) same sex relationships, b) burning lust (as with sex addiction), c) multiple rather than monogamous relationships, or d) all of the above equally. Based on other passages as with Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Timothy, a case can be made that items b and c were of greatest importance to Paul.
    3) Of particular interest with this passage is that it comes as part of Paul’s introduction to a fledgling Roman church, a group he has yet to meet in person. The question is why does he choose to lead a stirring condemnation of immorality – in multiple forms. I would argue that he was looking for a clear competitive distinction between what Paul perceived as Christian vs. Roman culture. Given the dissolute reputation of the capitol city of the empire, what better place for Paul to mark his planned entry to his final destination than on the benefits of the city of God vs. man?
    4) As a final note, it can also be argued that Paul often injects personal opinion that extend beyond what Christ directly taught. On the subject of sex, it his clear that Paul preferred chastity, followed by marriage if necessary, then other forms of sexual relations.
    For more detail, see earlier 2013 blog post:
    Tough subject, but perhaps not quite as clear cut as what appears at first glance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.