The Pitched Battle for the Soul of America!

Copyright � 2007 Victor Shane, all rights reserved



Marriage and Family Values





Marriage 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:



The 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 particular time?


The 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?


Assuredly 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?


Fully 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.


Tarsus 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.


Thoroughly 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 law, etc.


Thus 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:



For 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.

(Ephesians 5:31–32, emphasis added)



What 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.


What 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.


As 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.


So 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.


There 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.


As 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 bride.


Man the strength of God; woman the pulchritude of creation—the perfect union.


Even 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.


What 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.


The 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:



For 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, 11–12)



And 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.


Doubtless 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.


Civilizations, 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.


But, 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?





We 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.


Christians 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 American culture!




Remove 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?


Let 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.


What 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!


The 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, homogeneous arrangements would tend to be more probable than heterogeneous arrangements.


Without 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 homosexualism!


Question: 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).





Judeo-Christian 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.


Today 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 following facsimile:



Marriage 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 groups.






Within 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).


Ordering Information

Back to top - Back to Home