IN GOD WE TRUST
The Pitched Battle for the Soul of
Copyright � 2007 Victor Shane, all
and Family Values
THE ASSAULT ON THE FAMILY
is a hotly contested issue of the culture war, one side fighting to
preserve its Judeo-Christian authenticity, the other chafing at the bit to
substitute a counterfeit. Orthodox Christians and Jews believe that
marriage must consist of the lawful union of one man with one woman.
Contrariwise atheists, radical feminists, homosexuals and their ACLU
lawyers tend to believe that marriage can be any union that man considers expedient, believing also that the
Judeo-Christian version is another one of those contingent institutions that the “ruling classes” have
invented in order to arrogate political authority to themselves and hold on
to the reigns of power. Let us remind ourselves of the words of Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels in their Manifesto of the Communist Party:
selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of
nature and of reason the social forms springing from your present mode of
production and form of property... this misconception you share with every
ruling class that has preceded you.... On what foundation is the present
family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its
completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.1
What then? What are we to think? Is the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage necessary, as Christians believe? Or is it
contingent, as Karl Marx once believed, and
as atheists, radical feminists, homosexuals and their ACLU lawyers continue
to believe? Who is right and who is wrong? Those who believe in God,
believing also that the best interests of mankind are realized by way of
Judeo-Christian marriage? Or those who deny the existence of God, believing
also that ethics are “situational” and it is up to man to
decide what purpose “marriage” can or cannot serve at any
cultural stalemate is compounded by the fact that most Christians themselves
don’t seem to possess clear insights into the origins of marriage.
Where then is the provenance of Judeo-Christian marriage and family? What
exactly did God have in mind with the heterogeneity of male and female?
the God who created billions of galaxies could
have created three, four, five, or dozens or hundreds of sexes. Why then
did He choose to create only two? Why did He choose to create them
“male and female” (Genesis 1:27)? What do these two sexes
represent? Is there a mystery hidden
in their heterogeneity?
two thirds of the New Testament was penned by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.
Converted on the road to Damascus, and known to Gentiles as
“Paul,” Saul was given divine insight whereby he should put in
perspective the work of the Messiah on the Cross and preach the Good News
of a reconciliation between God and man, contrary
to the Persian dualism that was still pervasive at that time.
was an ancient city on the Cilician plain, the
seat of a provincial governor when Persia ruled. Standing on the confluence
of East and West, it was an eclectic place where the wisdom of the Greeks
and the order of Rome merged with the dualism of Persia and mysticism of
the Orient. Born and raised in Tarsus, young Saul was given to draw from diverse
cultures. Later in his life he studied in Jerusalem under the auspices of
the leading Jewish teacher of the time, the greatly respected Rav Gamaliel (prominent
member of the Sanhedrin and grandson of the legendary Hillel)
referred to in Acts 5:34.
imbued, disciplined and grounded in the teachings of the Old Covenant, Saul
was at the same time a citizen of Rome, fluent in several languages, in all
respects well-read and well-informed, in all respects the consummate
scholar of his time, familiar with all things religious, historical and
philosophical—creation myths, Babylonian legends, Persian dualism,
Greek Classics, the teachings of Stoics and Epicureans, the tenets of Roman
it is that when we find a scholar of the caliber of St. Paul referring to
the institution of marriage as a great
mystery, we can be sure that something is up:
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ
and the church.
is this great mystery all about?
It is all about a reconciliation and reunification, contrary to the Zoroastrian/Persian
dualism that was pervasive at that time. In one sense, the Pauline Gospel
preaches the remarriage of the Creator with His creation, made possible
through the redemptive work of the Messiah on the Cross. This is evident in
the Christian symbol of the Cross itself, where we find Heaven and earth
“kissing” in the intersection of two lines, the vertical
representing the Creator, the horizontal the creation.
is Paul saying? He is saying there is far more to the institution of holy
matrimony than what the derivative and perverted world could possibly fathom. The union of
man and woman in the bonds of holy matrimony is a joyous affirmation and
celebration of the reunification of the Creator
with His creation, productive of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Marriage is the most cherished, precious, spiritual, mystical,
mysterious and transcendent of human relationships, because it mirrors the
unification of the Creator with His creation, Christ with the Church.
the symbol of the Cross suggests, the heterogeneity of “male and
female” (vertical and horizontal) reflects the heterogeneity of God
and creation, male being the
analogue of the Creator and female
the analogue of creation, the joining of the two celebrated in the joyous
union of bride and groom in the bonds of holy matrimony.
then, in all respects, the love affair between the sons of Adam and the
daughters of Eve has its referents in the love of the Creator for His
creation, exemplified in the love of Christ for His Church.
are other parallels. As the nature of God and the nature of the creation
are perfectly complimentary, so also the nature of man and the nature of
woman—Men are from Mars, women
are from Venus2,
to quote the title of a book by John Gray exploring the intrinsic
differences between men and women. It is, for example, the husband who
initiates the union—it is the Spirit of God who enters into the
creation to invest and inform it with the seeds of life. As the creation
cannot enter into God, but God can enter into creation, so also woman
cannot enter into man, but man is given to enter into woman.
God extends His hand of fellowship and companionship towards the creation
in love, so also man extends his hand of fellowship and companionship
towards woman in love. And as the creation assumes the name of God, so also
the woman assumes the name of man, not the other way around. And as God is
the Husband who nurtures and takes care of His creation, so also man is the
husband who nurtures and takes care of his wife, not the other way around.
And as God loves, honors, dignifies, elevates and uplifts His creation, so
also the bridegroom loves, honors, dignifies, elevates and uplifts his
the strength of God; woman the pulchritude of creation—the perfect
as Eve is a figure of creation, and Adam a figure of the Creator, so also
we find Eve being the one whom the “serpent” (figuratively,
lawyer acting on behalf of the created thing) approaches first. Thus it can
be seen that the fall of mankind was not instigated by the sin of womankind
per se, but by the failure of both when seduced by some pitfall internal to
the creation, of which “Eve” is made analogue, symbol and type
in the Genesis narrative.
then shall we say about the headship of man over woman? Simply that it has
its referents in the headship of the Creator over His creation, Christ over
His Church, there being neither blame, nor prejudice, nor superiority, nor
inferiority between the sexes per se.
primacy must always be given to the
Creator. This is why the advent of Adam precedes that of Eve in the Genesis
narrative, just as the eternal and unchanging existence of God precedes the
advent of the heavens and the earth. And just as God conceives the creation
out of Himself, there being nothing else to conceive it out of, so also we
find Eve being conceived out of Adam’s “rib.” For
inasmuch as the creation is the glory of God, so and likewise is woman the
glory of man. And just as God is not of the creation, but the creation is
of God and for God, so also the male
and female referents thereof. As
St. Paul affirms:
a man indeed ought not to cover [deny] his head[ship],
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory
of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man....
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is
the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7–9,
just as God steps out of eternity to set foot on earth and to join Himself
to His creation as Husband and Savior, so also, for this reason,
“shall a man leave his father and mother to be joined together with
his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31). In that
the Bible says “the two shall be one flesh,” it is describing
the reconciliation, reunification, oneness, completeness and wholeness made possible by
the work of the Messiah on the Cross. Here is the Biblical origin and
provenance of Judeo-Christian marriage.
upon hearing all of this, atheists, radical feminists and homosexuals would
roll their eyes and claim that this is more of the same contingent stuff and nonsense that was invented
long ago by the “male patriarchy” in order to establish its own
hegemony over women.
Are they right? What are we to think? Is Judeo-Christian marriage indeed contingent, as radical feminists claim, or
can it be shown to be necessary in the rational sense we have defined elsewhere? The
answer of course is that it can indeed be shown to be necessary because the prescriptions of God
are in all respects consistent with reality.
nations, cultures and societies are composed of human elements that can be
grouped, arranged, structured and organized in any number of ways. Ought
not the Creator of mankind be concerned about the
consequences of these groupings, arrangements, structures, organizations
and unions? You would expect an omniscient, all-knowing and loving Heavenly
Father to come up with an optimal arrangement, productive of the greatest
volume of life, liberty and happiness. He has: the Judeo-Christian family.
what if there were no God? What sort of groupings, arrangements, structures,
organizations, unions and partnerships would you expect to end up with, given the nature, property and
orientation of the physical world?
THE FEMINIZATION OF AMERICA
pointed out that the symbol of the Cross reflects the heterogeneity of God
and creation, male being the
analogue of the Creator (vertical component) and female the analogue of creation (horizontal component), the
joining of the two celebrated in the joyous union of bride and groom in the
bonds of holy matrimony.
give the primacy to the Creator (male component) and relative subordinacy to the creation (female component). Contrariwise atheists, radical feminists, radical
environmentalists, homosexuals, and their ACLU lawyers tend to deny the
existence of the Creator (male
component) and give the primacy
to the creation itself (female
component). Remove God from America, and you can expect the feminization of
all considerations of God and Judeo-Christian morality. Exclude the Ten
Commandments. Strip the human condition of the protective coverings of
divine law, spiritual restraint, imperative, and discipline, and you will
have reduced human beings to physical systems. Now apply the rule of
general physical law to their behavior, and you would expect to find a cultural bias toward same-kind groupings,
arrangements, structures, organizations, unions and partnerships. How so?
Why would the derivative forms of existence inevitably
lead to homosexualism?
us briefly touch on what is discussed in great length in the pages of In God We Trust. According to the
Bible, God created Adam from the “dust of the earth” (physics
of this universe). Our physical constitution (the atoms that make up our
DNA, our cells, our flesh, our sinews, our bones, our nervous system, our
neurons, our synapses, etc.) is “wired” into the behavioral
field of a cosmos that makes general selections in favor of higher
probability (entropy) states, a property that feeds back into our physical
constitution to produce an attraction toward, and preference for, more probable states.
then? Is the pro-homosexuality agenda of the liberal left a particular
instance of general physical law? Put simply, is it the urge to move toward
more probable states? Indeed it is!
word “homogeneous” is a composite of the Greek homo, meaning “one, the
same,” and genus,
“kind.” The word “heterogeneous” is a composite of
the Greek hetero, meaning
“two, different,” and genus,
“kind.” Given the nature of the physical world, simple
arrangements would tend to be more probable than complex arrangements,
same-kind arrangements would tend to be more probable than different-kind
arrangements would tend to be more probable than heterogeneous arrangements.
God, there would have been no complex, heterogeneous Judeo-Christian family
to speak of, only simpler same-kind groupings, arrangements, communes,
tribes, cults, gangs, cabals, associations, unions, partnerships and
amalgamations. Absent the design of God, the familial arrangements of
mankind would have flowed into the mold of probability, away from
lower-probability, complex, heterogeneous
structures, toward higher-probability, homogeneous,
simpler structures. Remove God from American culture and you can expect it to gravitate toward
If you remove the Divine from the human, what sort of fundamental
orientation would you be left with? Well, if cosmos were oriented toward
higher probability states, then you would expect to find the same
orientation internalized in all flesh. The same derivative spirit that would conform to the nature of the world in idolatry, would also conform to the orientation of the world
in homosexualism. Therefore the Creator who says, “You shall have no
god before me” (Exodus 20:2) also says, “Honor your father and
mother that you may live long and prosper” (Exodus 20:12). In that He
says “father and mother,” He confirms having created them
“male and female” (Genesis 1:27).
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
marriage is not only an institution of God, but also the building block of
the Republic of the United States. Hence this is a call to
awakening—a call to urgent action. It is time for Christians to get
off the fence, roll up their sleeves and fulfill their destiny as the salt
of the earth and the light of the world. It is time for Christians to get off the couch and use
the virtues of the American political system to stem the derivative tide and restore marriage to the
dignity of its origins in due process of law.
is the day for lawful action. Tomorrow may be too late. Without presuming
to dictate the exact wording of a Federal
Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution, we submit the
in the United States shall be defined as the lawful union of one man with
one woman. Congress shall make no law respecting any other definition.
Neither the Constitution of the United States, nor the constitution of any
state, nor any state or federal law, shall otherwise confer marital status,
or the legal incidents and privileges thereof, upon unmarried couples or
the pages of In God We Trust you
will learn how to affirm the necessity of Judeo-Christian marriage in a rational, scientific
way, confirming everything that the Bible has been saying about the
sanctity of holy matrimony and the importance of the nuclear family. (Refer also to Understanding Homosexualism in our I-5 Newsletter.)
1. Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (English version published in 1888),
Part II: Proletarians and Communists.
2. John Gray, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (New
York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992).
Back to top
- Back to Home