There’s a great deal of sloppy thinking going on about human sexuality. Many Christians have capitulated on the topic of same-sex sexuality. They’ve given into the premise that God’s Word does not disapprove of such relationships. Students at some Christian colleges are the worst offenders. Students and alumni at Taylor University, a Christian College in Upland, Indiana, are denouncing the decision to have Vice President Mike Pence deliver this year’s Commencement because of his opposition to same-sex sexuality.
The school is standing by its decision to have VP Pence speak. “The 3,300 people who have signed the change.org petition claim the “Trump-Pence Administration’s policies” are “not consistent with the Christian ethic of love we hold dear.” Based on what? The Bible says that “God is love,” the same God who makes it clear that same-sex sexuality is a sin. In the Bible, love is defined by the law. Love is not a feeling, an abstraction, or self-proclamation. An act is not loving unless it is measured by an objective moral standard.
One Taylor graduate said the school “should be ashamed… I am physically shaking… I feel personally attacked.” Students attending a Christian University either don’t know much about Christianity and what the Bible says about sex or they have no regard for God’s law and have decided to become a law unto themselves (Judges 17:6). But being a law unto one’s self means that every person has the same moral autonomy. Who determines whose law of love is the right one?
Sex is a good thing. It was created by God. It didn’t evolve, and if it did, then any type of sex is OK, even rape. According to evolutionists, human beings, homo1 sapiens (wise man) to use the scientific vernacular, are evolved animals. Animals passed on their genes via rape and stopped genetic inferiors through “murder.”
Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, authors of A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (2000), argue that “human males are by nature rapists, murderers, warriors and perpetrators of genocide.” The authors of The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence (1999) argue that “rape is an adaptation to increase the reproductive success of men who would otherwise have little access to women.”2
Rape was good for evolutionary progress with no consideration of morality. A person’s genes were doing what genes do to propagate the species. Michael Ruse and E.O Wilson believe that “we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day.” Instead, they claim,
Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding…. Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.3
The latest episode of CBS’s Madam Secretary attacks the Republican Party by stating it needs to “evolve.” Evolve from what to what and by what standard? “Nature, red in tooth and claw”? Maybe attributes like kindness and compassion are bad for the evolutionary process. Who really knows? Maybe Hitler was right.
People who engage in same-sex behavior must decide what side of the moral wall they are on. If they decide to abandon God, then homosexuality is just something evolved bags of meat and bones with an evolved monkey brain do. There is no right or wrong about anything. No hate crimes. No murder. No theft. No rape. No adultery. No prohibition against sex with children of any age.
According to atheists, morality is a social construct foisted on humans based on religious myths. Atheistic materialism cannot account for any kind of morality since there is no ultimate lawgiver to pass judgment.
There are people like Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and 2020 presidential candidate, who argue that God sanctions their same-sex sexuality. He claims to be a Christian but glories in his homosexuality when the Bible condemns it. On what basis can he account for the legitimacy of the act of homosexuality? His male anatomy doesn’t support such a claim. There is no way to perpetuate the species as a homosexual. It’s simple biology.
In the end, opposition to Pete Buttigieg is not about him personally; it’s about what he does. The same standard that’s used against his sexual practices applies to everyone equally. It’s the same moral law for everyone. Everett Piper offers the following in an opinion piece for the Washington Times:
“Mr. Buttigieg, has it ever occurred to you, that the “Mike Pences of the world” don’t have a problem with “who you are,” but rather we just disagree with what you do? We believe human identity is much more than the sum total of someone’s sexual inclinations. In fact, the “creator” whom you so boldly reference makes this pretty clear.
Your sexual appetites are your business. The thing about obedient and faithful Christians is this; we consider someone else’s private life to be just that — Private. Please stop telling us what kind of sex you like. We don’t want to know. If you want us to stay out of your bedroom, please shut the door. Stop opening it up and forcing us to applaud and celebrate.
What gives you the right to redefine a sacrament of the church? You don’t get to make up your own Christianity. You also don’t get to make up your own Jesus, and in case you missed it, He is explicitly clear on His definition of marriage: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh” [Matt. 19:3-6].
Pete Buttigieg’s quarrel is with God, not the “Mike Pences of the world.”
- In Latin, homo means “man.” In Greek, homo means “same.” [↩]
- Denis Alexander, Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and Faith in the 21st Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 369. [↩]
- Michael Ruse and E.O Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics” in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. J.E. Hutchingson (Orlando: Harcourt and Brace, 1991), 310-311. Also see Michael Ruse, “Evolution Ethics: A Phoenix Arisen,” in Issues in Evolutionary Ethics, ed. Paul Thompson (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 225. [↩]