This shows a fundamental confusion about what the Church is.
The confusion can be put into very sharp focus with the question, "Which came first, God or man?"
In other words, did God create man, or did man invent god?
This is the great conflict, between religion and secular humanism, respectively. Every religion has a creation story which places God in a preeminent position, and human beings as creations of God. Secular humanism claims that human beings evolved and invented god and religion, and now, as enlightenment begins to dawn, can progress beyond that, having no further need of religion or gods.
My friend's question clearly shows that she believes the particular religion spoken of to be a creation of man, and not a revealed organization, directed through prophets, and created by God himself. From that point of view, what else could she imagine might become of the church? It will have to adapt to the forces of the world or go out of existence.
The headline can be considered another way. Had the Church immediately changed its doctrine when the Supreme Court handed down the decision, it would clearly be a church defined and controlled by men. This writer cannot understand why anyone would want to belong to an organization that, on the one hand, claimed to be divine, and yet, on the other hand, just crumpled up under pressure from the world.
Given that she believes the Church was founded by a man, and has since been directed by men, is it any surprise that she no longer wants anything to do with it? She believes that it has a history of ultimately folding and caving under pressure from the world and that it will on this one, "just like with so many other issues." But, then she threatens that it won't survive as a religion unless it does this, and continues (presumably) to do so, as the world "progresses." She can't have it both ways! Either it is a religion or it is not.
Her argument is internally inconsistent, because what is a "religion" except an assertion that God created man and not the reverse. The argument allows no outcome for the Church except to just go away. Either it capitulates (demonstrating it is not truly a religion) or it persists and cannot "survive as a religion." The latter alternative is a chilling possibility as government flexes its power "just like with so many other issues" and legislates it out of existence. And secular humanists are actively waging war* on religion, to hasten what they believe to be the inevitable outcome.
Never mind that the Constitution (actually the Bill of Rights) does not allow Congress to pass such legislation. One of our nation's founders, John Adams, wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It is only a matter of time before the forces behind the war on religion will realize that a new constitution will now be needed. Our current constitution is now, or soon will be, "wholly inadequate."
With a new constitution, this nation, founded by religious people seeking religious liberty, will cease to exist as such, and will be reborn in the image of secular humanism. Such is my friend's prediction, taken to its logical conclusion. Religion will be outlawed.
What other outcomes might occur?
We could all "just get along." This is how secular humanism captures the minds of well-meaning onlookers. Clearly, this isn't compatible with the progressive agenda, although it uses it to get votes.
Or, the world could be burned at His coming when it is "ripened in iniquity."
*The declaration of war is not some "conspiracy theory" but has been published openly by Sir Richard Dawkins, the prophet of secular humanism.
