Aslan, a type of the Christ, resurrected (The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, 2005)

Just as Aslan, a symbol of Christ, had the final word over death; likewise the Lord Jesus will have the final word on Marriage.

On June 26, 2015, five justices of the supreme court took it upon themselves to   overturn legally enacted state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage that had been enacted in 30 states¹, to redefine the meaning of marriage that has been understood as between a single man and a single woman for multiple millennia by the majority of religious adherents² and  thereby disregard the religious beliefs of 2/3 of the world, so that the less than 4% of Americans³ who identify as gay can legally fulfill their sinful desires. That is to say nothing of the trampling underfoot of the clear teaching of scripture⁴, and the disregard for the maintenance of a modicum of morality (having already lost most of it to the sexual revelation) preferring instead to push us over the slippery slope toward polygamy, and a host of other evils.⁵

As one might expect, supporters of the gay-rights movement erupted in all sorts of displays of joy and approval. A new hashtag was born to link like minds: #lovewins. For those not on twitter, you can see a sample of the rejoicing here.  I couldn't help but be reminded of the scene from the 2005 production of CS Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Aslan has surrendered himself to the witch. The witch gloats in her apparent victory:

Behold, the great lion.
Bind him.
Wait, let him first be shaved.
Bring him to me.
You know Aslan, I'm a little disappointed in you.
Did you honestly think by all this that you could save the human traitor?
You are giving me your life and saving no one. Ha!
So much for love.

Tonight - the deep magic will be appeased. (Crowd is increasingly roused)
But tomorrow we will take Narnia forever! (round of cheering)
In that knowledge - despair and die! (thrusts a knife into Aslan)
The great cat is dead! (Cheers)
General, prepare you troops for battle. (General celebration continues)
(To herself) However short it may be.

As usual, Lewis' allegories are uncannily accurate.  Though I see at least eight parallels, so as not to be tedious, let me point out just three:

Bind him -
The LGBT rights movement are not interested in coexistence and tolerance. They are after complete submission and agreement to their agenda, with no ability to be free from their doctrine. This is well depicted by the logo that replaces the "coexist" logo: comply.

You are giving me your life and saving no one. Ha!
Aslan, a type of Christ, gives his life for Edmund, who performed an act of  betrayal. And here we see the root of the problem for many - they do not believe the gospel. The gospel tells us:

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas,^[b] and then to the Twelve
1 Cor 15.3b-5

But there is nothing about the gospel they believe: They don't believe they're in sin, so they don't believe they need a savior to die for them. If they even believe Jesus existed, they tend to deny he was crucified for their sins, and they certainly don't believe he rose from the dead. And so like the witch of Narnia, since they don't believe the gospel, they also don't understand that they are like the 10 Kings in Revelation who are given authority for one hour.  But also like those kings, they will be conquered and judged by the lamb - Christ. (Rev 17.12-14)

Tomorrow we take Narnia
Here we see the real goal: world-wide conquest. And with it, the removal of Godly morals and behavior to be replaced by the Godless morals of the flesh - and your agreement that their sin is okay. Or as one commentator put it:

"Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame. The agenda is not tolerance for different beliefs and lifestyles. The agenda is a demand that everyone get on board with the moral revolution or be punished. That means if you or your church won’t get with the program, then the revolutionaries will endeavor to close you down."⁶

This is the situation in which we now find ourselves. Let me make just two comments about it:

1. The LGBT community will not have the final word
Like the witch, the LGBT community believe they have the final word. Also like the witch, they are badly mistaken. When Hitler came into power in 1933, he was finally able to give full vent to his hatred of Jews - making it legal to kill them. And so 6 million Jews were killed - legally.  But obviously making something that's wrong and immoral legal, doesn't make it right. After the war was won and the perpetrators caught, did the world say "all is fair in love and war," go your merry way? No, all is not fair in either love or war. The world correctly said the Nazis were war criminals. High ranking officials like Adolf Eichmann (who was charged with planning the deportation of Jews to concentration camps) were called to account for their "crimes against humanity." His claim: he didn't kill anyone, he was just following orders.⁷ Neither the judges nor the world bought it. Instead, they held him accountable to a higher law - God's law. So he and a number of other Nazi officials were convicted as war criminals.

The point: Eichmann and the others were held accountable to a higher standard, a higher law than what Hitler had made legal. Likewise all who are celebrating now will be held accountable to a higher law, one given by the creator of the universe, who also created marriage. Those who celebrate this immoral ruling now, who do not embrace the true love and forgiveness offered in the gospel, will suffer the same fate as the witch and the Nazi war criminals - judgment by a higher court.

2. God's Definition of Sin
When defending traditional marriage, do you bring up the concept of sin? Many have attempted to defend traditional marriage without appealing to Biblical morality. Instead they've appealed to other reasons to support traditional marriage such as:

• Thousands of years of tradition
• Only traditional (male-female) partners can produce babies
• The well being of children in a family
• The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to govern in that area
• The slippery slope argument

While all true, they miss the main point. Christians have too long acquiesced to the claim that the Bible cannot be used to defend our beliefs. Would a marine acquiesce to the enemy telling him he must put down his weapons? Why then do Christians agree to abandon the "weapons of our warfare"? (2 Cor 10.4 KJV. For the non-Christians out there, the weapon referred to here is the word of God, also know as the sword of the Spirit. (Ep 6.17)) Because the crux of the matter is the definition of sin. And the question is, who gets to define what is sin, and what is not?

Does man get to decide? When man gets to decide, you get men like Hitler deciding it's legal to kill Jews - and anyone else he doesn't like. You get followers of Darwin who decide it's right to kill "lesser species" - in their view, anyone who is not white. (For more on that, see my previous article Darwin's Evil Eggs, home to roost) You get groups like NAMBLA who, as was common in ancient Rome⁸, want it legal to have sex with children. And you get supreme court justices who want to redefine marriage in an effort to provide "equality."  Just as Hitler and white supremacists are too filled with hate to see the error of their ways; gay rights activists are too steeped in their sin to see the error of their ways, and that they already had equal rights. Like everyone else, they had the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that would have them.

I hope my phrasing of that last sentence highlighted another point they fail to recognize:  unless you acknowledge some type of morality, there will always be a limit. The current limit is you can now marry anyone of either sex who will have you. But why should a little thing like consent (or age for that matter) get in the way of a person's ability to marry whoever she or he wants? Why not do as the Roman's did and just take the person - any person - you want; whether they will have you or not? According to ancient legend - as told in the tale of the rape of the Sabine women, "The Roman state, the Roman family was founded on an act of rape that turns into an act of willing submission on the part of the women who are raped."⁹  As long as we have mere humans making the rules, who's to say they were wrong?

Unless God's morality is followed, you can't be guaranteed that those making the laws will follow any standard of morality, much less the morality which brings the greatest good to all. But one thing you can be sure, regardless of who is making the laws, God's law stands:

By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.
Isaiah 45.23-24

On the day that happens, when the Lord has the final word on marriage,
(this will be the same Lord who said:

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^{[a] 5} and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matt 19.4-6 )

 ...will you be rejoicing because you stood for the truth, or will you be put to shame?

Duane Caldwell | posted 7/4/2015

Notes

1 List of former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type, Wikipedia, accessed 7/3/2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type
back