Everyone heard, but not everyone cared. The lifestyle libertines of affluent Northern Hemisphere countries are so spoiled that they feel that not getting their way at every turn is equals suffering from injustice.

I think this is an important comment.  But what does it tell us? 

1) the metaphor is one of hygiene.  The implication is that TEC is sick.  Perhaps true, but how?

2) What does it say about the medium in which we transmit ideas?  Colds travel fast; relationships are long.  Twenty years ago a gay priest could be friends with an African priest and share mission - but the information about homosexuality was either private, or untransmitted.  My point:  the internet is more responsible for our current state of affairs then anything.  It has replaced conversation, and face to face engagement. 

Harry Greville’s comment is interesting - and possibly true, but I’m indifferent toward the tone.  It is an implicit condemnation (a scolding?) of capitalism, which basically asserts that growth and more and consumption are essential parts of the economy.  If there is a direct link between economic freedom and sexual freedom then it will be hard to pose restrictions on sexuality.  I admit, Greville’s perspective that I, as a reappraiser, have some sympathy with. 

What I would emphasize is that an affluent culture is completely unlike biblical culture.  And this is the problem:  scripture wants its people to live in abundance and move away from scarcity thinking - but it is located in the midst of scarcity.  The problem is that once things are getting better and people are becoming more affluent, cultures become more ... liberal.

John Wilkins, you draw all the right inferences. The abundant material comforts that come with capitalist success make it increasingly difficult for sincere followers of Jesus Christ to acknowledge the enormity of spiritual poverty and social decay throughout the world for which moral self-discipline has been the recommendation of all monotheistic scriptures.