There is a somewhat curious (and very disconcerting) development presently playing out here in South Africa that ought to be of much interest, not only to those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ, but also to everyone else…
The case involves a non-profit organisation operating under the very cutesy name of “The Teddy Bear Clinic For Abused Children” who made application to the High Court in Pretoria last year to have the consensual age for sex in South Africa reduced from the present age level of 16 years, down to as low as 12 years...
The Teddy Bear Clinic[1], an organisation that claims to be “dedicated to ensuring that abused children are protected and rehabilitated”, argued in its application to the court that the current legislation “is unconstitutional in that it undermines the dignity of children and that it is not in the best interests of children”, i.e. it is wrong for children younger than 16 years to be denied in law to have sexual relations with other boys and girls, or even adult men and adult women. The Teddy Bear Clinic premised its argument entirely on a report written by a clinical psychologist who is seeking to promote “healthy sexual behaviour”, including “all forms of (sexual) penetration amongst adolescents, even as young as 12 years”, “provided that there is consent”, and that “(proper) precautions are taken to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STI[2]” (sic).
Now, as worrying as all of this is, The Teddy Bear Clinic’s actions really ought not to shock or even surprise us, after all, God forewarned us that we are to expect this kind of thing in a morally debased world[3]. But what is troubling about this case, is not so much The Teddy Bear Clinic’s intent to push our society even deeper onto the slippery slope towards greater moral turpitude, but it is in fact the Christian response thereto…
The Christian Response
In opposing the application by The Teddy Bear Clinic, the Pretoria High Court invited the Justice Alliance of South Africa[4] (JASA) to assist the court in its rejoinder.
As a non-profit Christian organisation that is “committed to upholding and defending Judeo-Christian values in South African society”, there is no question that JASA performs a very important, and in fact, a very necessary service as one of the many self-appointed ‘moral watchdogs’ in the country, but not just one with a bark, but one with a real bite (as JASA’s sterling track record clearly attests to)!
But what was so terribly disconcerting about the Christian response, was the thrust of JASA’s argument - in its founding affidavit[5], JASA argued that, by permitting the age of consent to be reduced from 16 years down to 12 years, “it would invite behaviour that is neither ‘normative’ nor ‘healthy’ amongst children so young” (sic)! And in support of its argument for the “psychological damage that it would cause young children to suffer”, JASA has now assembled what it has termed, “a galaxy of expert talent to oppose the Teddy Bear Clinic’s application to have laws against child sex struck down” (sic). JASA’s ‘expert team’ involves specialist obstetricians, gynaecologists, specialist paediatricians, and even a ‘specialist sexologist’[6]!
When I raised the matter with JASA in order to ask why it is that they had decided to argue its case on psychological grounds that relies entirely on the ‘expert’ testimony of man, rather than on God’s divine decree which clearly prohibits this kind of thing (1Cor 6:18, 7:2, Eph 5:3), JASA’s response was a candid, “invoking God would never impress the court!”
Now, that I abjectly submit, is what is really at issue here - this case is not about a principled few campaigning valiantly to prevent legislation from being relaxed to make what most 12-years olds are probably already engaged in, into an act of law - instead, I contend, it is a sad concession on the part of Christians that the ‘moral authority of man’ eclipses that of God - that is what is really at issue here I believe!
JASA vs. The Teddy Bear Clinic - Echoes Of Genesis 3
While so many (including a great many professing ‘Christians’) are inclined to dismiss those pivotal events described to us in Genesis 3 as nothing more than allegory, they do however have to grant (provided that they are being intellectually honest), that it does accurately account for the wicked inclinations that we all find within each of us, as well as the moral turpitude that we see all around us and which the pages of history speak of so voluminously - not only does the Genesis 3 ‘story’ comport perfectly with the moral baseness of our world, but it is also an explanation of things that simply has no equal!
Briefly… tempted by the dizzying lure of gaining moral autonomy - being able to decide for himself what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' without having to appeal to God as his moral authority and judge, the creature was instead permitted by God (for reasons I do not fully pretend to understand) to set himself up as the measure of all things in opposition to the Author of all truth.
With that in mind, one cannot but help to notice the obvious parallels that exist between this case and the events described to us in Genesis 3 - (paraphrasing): “Did God really say… naaaw - rather call on the ‘expert’ testimony of psychologists, sexologists and the like to tell you whether it is wrong for anyone to engage in sexual relations outside of the institutional bonds of marriage!”
One can just hear the hiss of the Serpent in all of this…
Moreover, I would argue that no Christian ought to have any part in a matter that amounts to defending an already Godless law (which sanctions sexual relations for anyone aged 16 years and older, whether they do so within the bounds of a God-ordained relationship or not), even if it intends to ensure that the law does not become ‘more Godless’ (if that were at all possible)!
A Godly Response
Of course, it is always very easy for anyone to launch an armchair critique from a distance, so, if one in fact had to mount a Godly response to The Teddy Bear Clinic’s application, what ought it look like?
Firstly, as Christians, we have to recognize that God and his revelation stands (or ought to stand) as our supreme authority on all matters, at all times, under all circumstances, everywhere, whether it concerns balancing our cheque books, or reading a bedtime story to our children, or doing science, or deciding on the ethicality of allowing our children to become sexually active at a very young age, or whatever (2Tim 3:15-17, Jud 1:3). This means that, as Christians, we always and without compromise, assess, understand, interpret and judge everything in light of God and his revelation (Psm 36:9) - never do we accede to accommodate the world on its terms, and never do we forsake God’s absolute standard of right and wrong, for doing so would amount to the Christian acknowledging (either explicitly or implicitly as is the case here), that the moral autonomy of man has greater epistemic authority than God himself!
Whenever the Christian concedes to forsake God’s absolute standard of right and wrong in favour of that which man (who suffers from the malaise of moral atrophy) may autonomously imagine (which is exactly what’s happening here), he in fact allows himself “to become like the fool” (Prv 26:4), “claiming to know God, but denying him in his actions” (Tit 1:16)! And whenever the Christian disavows God in this manner (i.e. when he is not prepared to invoke God in the public square for fear of scorn or ridicule), he in fact does exactly what Peter did when he was asked by the servant girl about Jesus (Mat 26:72,74), albeit with devastating consequences:
“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.”
- Matthew 10:32,33 (NIV)
So, here’s the real Christian apologetic in this matter - very briefly: while The Teddy Bear Clinic may of course simply choose to dismiss the true Christian position by continuing to deny God as the One Moral Law Giver, the proper Christian response would be to demonstrate just how easily their argument can be reduced to absurdity under the rigour of critical scrutiny (1Cor 1:19-20, 2Cor 10:3-5) - all arguments for the ‘rightness’ of the ‘wrongness’ of anything that is premised on the ‘man measure’-doctrine, rather than the ‘God measure’-doctrine, can always be shown to suffer from severe internal inconsistencies, self-contradictions and self-refutations!
Furthermore, by relying on any form of anthropocentric argument to make its case (whether it be the ‘expert testimony’ of psychologists, or sexologists, or whatever), JASA necessarily invites just another barrage of counter ‘expert testimony’ which The Teddy Bear Clinic is bound to call upon in order to challenge JASA on every one of its points - something of a ‘Mexican showdown’ is therefore inevitable!
So, in that likely scenario, just how is the court expected to rule - is it going to base its judgement on whichever testimony sounded more authoritative, or is it going to be persuaded by the testimony that is supported by the most research, or is it going to base its judgment on whichever witness has the most impressive professional credentials… And just what will JASA’s response be if The Teddy Bear Clinic presents an actual appeal to the court from a 12-year old who happens to like the idea of being able to have sex without worrying what the law has to say about it all, or, if The Teddy Bear Clinic surveyed all 12-year olds to vote on the matter (given the prurient nature of our culture, it’s not going to be very difficult for anyone to guess the outcome of that one), how does JASA propose to respond without being arbitrary and without appealing to a yet another self-defeating response that is based on ‘man the measure’?
From all of this, it ought to be obvious to even the most libertine among us, that any moral judgment that is not solidly anchored in God’s objective standard of right and wrong, can only lead to further moral confusion and moral turpitude!
In the final analysis, it can be (and must be) shown that morality can only ever be intelligible if an appeal is made to God and his revelation to judge all matters of right and wrong in a truly objective and absolute fashion, and that I believe, is what ought to represent the real thrust of JASA’s rejoinder, rather than appealing to spurious and capricious ‘expert testimony’ to try and answer a legitimately moral question!
If there is one thing that we as Christians know (and which our experience confirms every time we open a newspaper), is that one can never legislate morality, for it is in the heart of man where the real problem lies - man’s conduct always belies his true motives (Gen 5:5), and that is something that no legislation or amount of counselling will ever be able to remedy (Jer 13:23). The only real curative demands nothing less than the Judge of all of mankind to step into space and time in order to rescue mankind from its human condition!
JASA’s response therefore, is concerned only with the symptoms of the matter, and not with the real root cause! Moreover, because JASA’s answer to The Teddy Bear Clinic has no Scriptural warrant whatsoever, and in fact, deliberately disavows God as the Moral Law Giver, it’s case is necessarily doomed to fail the Christian cause (that will be true even if The Teddy Bear Clinic’s application should not succeed)!
But in the end, I continue to question the wisdom for any Christian organisation to even involve itself with something like this…
“There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death”
- Proverbs 14:12 (NIV)
[1]  ttbc.org.za/
[2] Sexually Transmitted Infections
[3] Romans 1:24
[4] www.justicealliance.co.za/
[5] www.justicealliance.co.za/download/cc-2011-05-Founding%20Affidavit-Teddy%20Bear%20Clinic%20case.pdf - p.3, Para 9
[6] justicealliance.co.za/download/mr-2011-12-15%20Teddy%20Bear%20Clinic.pdf
Distribute freely!
|