The slippery slope | 28Out2011 20:32:13
Earlier this year, some top US academics attended a conference hosted by an organisation called ‘B4U-ACT’.(2) This group, whom the lawyer Professor Judith Reisman describes as the ‘Academic Pedophile Lobby’, want the American Psychological Association to reclassify pedophilia as just another ‘sexual orientation’(3). Sadly, one strongly suspects that, over the next twenty years or so, they may well succeed.
At the heart of Darwinism is the belief that we are nothing more than biochemistry—that all our thoughts, feelings and actions are simply the result of our genes and the environment. According to Anthony Cashmore, who is Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, “we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”(4) If so, then no-one is responsible for their actions, and whatever we desire is really natural. Taking this view to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as a sexual aberration, and this includes sexual attraction to children. All ‘rational, scientifically minded people’, it will be claimed, will come to see that this is true, and only the bigoted and intolerant will deny it. Pedophiles, who engage only in ‘consensual relationships’ with minors will become the latest ‘victim group’ and those championing their cause will become the new heroes of the human rights movement.
Many in the church argue that the creation/evolution debate is a side issue. They could not be more wrong! The evolutionary world-view is totally opposed to the Christian world-view, and conflict between these two ideologies is nowhere made plainer than in the area of sexual morality. According to B4U-ACT, “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.”(3) In stark contrast to this, the Bible insists that the cause of the attraction felt between a man and woman is known—God made a suitable mate for Adam (Gen. 2:20–24).
From past experience, the likelihood is that B4U-ACT’s campaign to reclassify pedophilia as just another ‘sexual orientation’ will be supported even by prominent members of the church.
An example not to follow
Dr Roy Clements was a well-known evangelical Bible expositor who, after twenty years as pastor of a leading Baptist Church in England, started to challenge traditional Christian views on sexual behaviour. Although we would not suggest that Dr Clements would endorse B4U-ACT’s views on pedophilia, he has openly supported the view that same-sex relationships between consenting adults can be acceptable before God. Some of his reasons for doing so are given in a web article entitled, What is an evangelical?(6) Firstly, he argues that a ‘middle position’ should be taken on issues like the age of the earth and evolution. Thinking evangelicals, he argues,
“ … have never yielded to the blinkered dogma which insists the world must have been made in seven days because Genesis says so. They have recognised that it is no part of Christian discipleship to turn a blind eye to discoveries of science which indicate the earth is millions of years old. On the contrary, a surprising number of our most able scientists are evangelical Christians, including biologists who are thoroughly persuaded of the general accuracy of evolutionary theory.”
Similarly, he argues, a ‘middle position’ should be taken on homosexual behaviour,
“ … because the issue of homosexuality, no less than the debate about creation and evolution, raises key questions of a scientific nature… only a fundamentalist would suggest that, because the Bible has no idea of homosexual orientation, that this modern psychological understanding of what it means to be ‘gay’ has to be rejected. [Enlightened] evangelicals occupy the middle ground when reason and Scripture seem to collide, and seek an interpretation that does justice to both.”
Needless to say, we do not accept either his understanding of what it is to be an evangelical, or even his claim to be one. Indeed, it is difficult to miss what is really behind his thinking. Science, he says, has shown the Genesis account of creation to be wrong, so it is appropriate to take a different view. Similarly, science has shown the biblical view of homosexuality to be wrong so, again, it is appropriate to take a different view. Reason and Scripture collide on these issues, he says, and so we must seek an interpretation that ‘does justice to them both’—which seems to mean favouring the ‘scientific’ view rather than the biblical view. Since, as worrying trends indicate, some ‘scientists’ will soon be arguing that sexual attraction to children is natural, people who tend to take a ‘middle position’ will, no doubt, find an interpretation that reconciles this with the Bible too.
A better way
At CMI, we argue that science and Scripture do not collide, and that there is no need to compromise either—a view which numerous articles on this website show to be entirely reasonable. The Bible can be trusted absolutely in what it says about Earth history, and it can be trusted in what it says about everything else too. We also seek to heed Christ’s commandment to love all people, and the Apostle Peter’s admonition that we should persuade others, both inside and outside the church, with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). However, only by holding fast to a Bible that is understood to be without error can we steer a clear course through the multitude of opinions that so easily undermine the truths of God’s Word.
Related articles on CMI’s website
Hermaphrodites and homosexuality
Kinsey, Darwin and the sexual revolution
The disingenuous and anti-Christian nature of ‘gay rights’ rhetoric
Atheists to do religious education in schools
(2) b4uact.org/index.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011.
(3) Kryn, J., Academic conference seeks to normalise pedophilia, LifeSiteNews, 16 August 2011; lifesitenews.com, last accessed 22 August 2011.
(4) Cashmore, A., The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499–4504, 2010.
(5) b4uact.org/facts.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011.
(6) www.psa91.com/royclements07.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011.
A slightly modified of an article that first appeared in Creation Ministries International (UK/Europe)’s Prayer News, October 2011.