Question. Per sexual-immorality-as-root-chasm-per-smm, UC teaches sexual immorality as the cardinal sin and the root chasm between humans and God — fixable only through the sacramental restoration of lineage (the Blessing). This makes sexual brokenness downstream of lineage corruption (the satanic blood lineage). Critics — both psychological and theological — typically reverse the causation: sexual brokenness is downstream of trauma, culture, or psychological dynamics, and lineage-talk is a metaphor or a way of pathologizing ordinary human messiness. What is the strongest UC argument for the directionality going lineage→sex, not sex→culture/psychology?
Why it matters. The whole Blessing → lineage-restoration → salvation chain depends on this directionality. If sexual brokenness is properly downstream of culture and trauma, then secular therapy + reformed cultural norms are the right intervention, and the Blessing is theologically extraneous. If properly downstream of lineage, only a sacrament that operates at the lineage level can address it — and the Blessing is necessary by construction. The two views are not reconcilable; either lineage is real-and-causal or it’s a metaphor.
Current best guesses. The UC argument likely rests on (a) DP’s account of the Fall as a literal lineage event (Eve’s relationship with the archangel), making lineage causally prior to all later effects; (b) SMM’s empirical claim that the Blessing produces observable change in family dynamics that secular therapy does not; (c) John 8:44 read as literal (children of “your father the devil”) rather than metaphorical. Each is contestable on its own terms — wrestling thread material.
Source. Raised in br-02-values-not-numbers REVIEW, from sexual-immorality-as-root-chasm-per-smm.