The slippery slope1
Published: 20 October 2011 (GMT+10)
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.”5 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.
- This is a slightly modifed version of an article which first appeared in the CMI-UK/Europe Prayer News, October 2011. Return to text.
- b4uact.org/index.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011. Return to text.
- Kryn, J., Academic conference seeks to normalise pedophilia, LifeSiteNews, 16 August 2011; lifesitenews.com, last accessed 22 August 2011. Return to text.
- 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. Return to text.
- b4uact.org/facts.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011. Return to text.
- www.psa91.com/royclements07.htm. Last accessed 22 August 2011. Return to text.
No moral or clear headed person would accept Paedophelea us a legitimate sexual persuasion. Most of us still want the church to deal more harshly with paedophelia amongst its priests!!
As an evangelical Christian of 20 years or so, and an enjoyer of your excellent Creation Mag, I agree with your conclusion. Although I am a complete novice on scientific matters I have never had any difficulty seeing the world from a God centred view. The conclusion of the pedophile group does not surprise me, evolution is trying slowly to de-humanise us all. Thank You God for making it so clear that you created everything. Whatever they try to do, the Lord Reigns! Hallelujah!
Does anyone else see the extreme irony of saying on one hand that “we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar” and then on the other hand claiming that someone else’s lack of free will in detesting those behaviors is intolerant and bigoted? This kind of upside-down and backwards logic should be the first indication that the homosexual/pediphilia lobby arguments are purely emotional rather than intellectual, and these irrational emotions are what inform their ‘science’.
I have spoken to several atheists from years ago who suggested that the only reason pediphilia is so traumatic to children is because of our ‘artificially constructed social norms’. The next thing we will probably see is the age of consent laws brought into question or discarded altogether, and arguments not so much for the rights of pediphiles but for children to be allowed to express their ‘natural sexuality’. I think we are only beginning to see the kind of sickness and evil of a society that has rejected it’s Creator.
There is, indeed, no logic to these new views on morality and sexual behaviour. As with most of the ideas emanating from atheism and post modernism, people simply choose to believe what they want to believe. This is the inevitable consequence of rejecting God and His word. One verse that comes to mind is Judges 17 v 6: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
Continue standing firm, and thank you for providing materials to help the rest of us do so, too.
It really turns my stomach to hear such rubbish! We are NOT mere animals! In fact, animals would never do what humans do! To look at a child with a sexual lust is disgusting. It’s a choice not a sexual orientation. The same way homosexuality is a CHOICE!
As far as I can tell, the bible doesn’t actually give an age of consent. Doesn’t that mean that over many years we slowly figured out that teenagers and children are vulnerable and should be protected? Just because psychologists and scientists have found that pedophilia isn’t as much of a "choice" as people once thought it was, doesn’t mean pedophiles will be allowed to do as they please. Instead of damning them, support finding them help.
While it’s true that no ‘age of consent’ is given, the Bible is replete with teaching about human relationships and places a very high premium on the way in which people treat their fellows, including even the strangers who are dwelling with them. There is much Scriptural teaching on sexual propriety, including both the Mosaic Law (which bound God’s covenant people in the days of the Old Testament) and, more especially, the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Consequently, the idea that God left people to grope around in the dark and ‘slowly figure out’ that young people and children should be protected holds no water.
All of us as sinful human beings are subject to the ravages of a Fallen World (see here)—prone to temptations of many kinds—but we are nevertheless culpable for our own actions. We are accountable to our Creator. Any world-view that marginalises God as Creator or denies His existence outright will necessarily attribute sinful tendencies (whether adultery, homosexual desire, pedophilia or a host of other non-sexual desires/lusts) to the way we were ‘wired’, as this exposé of a recent BBC article on sin demonstrates. This type of thinking has baneful consequences for our ‘civilised’ societies if embraced by the masses.
Having said this, I do agree that a true Christian’s response to individuals who are pedophiles should include a loving concern for the person (not least their spiritual state before the eternal God who will one day judge all men), while also maintaining an unremitting intolerance to sin. Needless to say, when such sins are held to be so contemptible generally—by a majority of decent citizens, regardless of what religious convictions they hold—those who dare to take a stand and maintain the right balance of attitude towards sexual deviants and their victims require courage and clear-thinking; they tread a very delicate line.
So, far from damming such people, something for which no evidence could be garnered from CMI’s writings (and much to the contrary), we would agree that pedophiles need help. A Christian can provide no greater support to such people than to introduce them to the One who sacrificially and willingly gave Himself on the Cross but who now, having conquered sin and death itself, lives and reigns in the power of an endless life. That is not to say that practical help should not also be offered to people who struggle with sexual temptation and are willing to receive it. However, evils thoughts of all kinds (sexual perversion included) proceed from the human heart and defile the person, so unless the root problem of such deviancy is addressed, any practical help is of no more long-term use than is the application of a plaster (band-aid) to a mortal gunshot wound.
I remember years ago when I read Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” I thought to myself, “How can there possibly be people so warped?” I think I need wonder no more. These people embrace a worldview which has no basis for morality (which is evil because it plainly denies the truth), call propensity to sexual sin an “alternative lifestyle”, and wrongly accuse uncompromising Christians for being intolerant, dogmatic and bigoted. In doing this they have labelled as evil that which is good.