Monday, February 12, 2007

Andy Kennedy, Europe's attempt to define morality


Don't look now but I had to adjust my radio today and make sure I wasn't dreaming. The Duke Blue Devils have now lost 4 in a row for the first time in 11 years under coach Krzyzewski. And wait a second, the Ole Miss Rebels have won 3 in a row. I'm not going to hunt down the statistic, but I'm pretty sure it's the first time this has ever happened. Congrats to Coach Kennedy, I don't know how you have done it so far.

In the name of the “lesser of two evils”, Europe is sadly at it again. Not too long ago, European countries passed laws making assisted suicide of the terminally ill legal. The rationale is as follows. Terminally ill men and women are going to endure suffering and eventually die. Would it not be ethical to allow the soon to be suffering human to die “peacefully” before the excruciating suffering begins? It sounds like a humane proposal.

Last week, the Swiss have proposed a law to further extend assisted suicide “relief” to the mentally ill. The argument is as follows: If it is good to assist in the killing a person with a terminally ill disease, then should it not also extend to the mentally ill that suffer. Why can the government tell a physically suffering person they can die peacefully, but a suffering mentally ill patient he cannot? Again, given the first law, the second law seems reasonable.

However, both these laws, though appearing reasonable, are terribly wrong. They assume and encourage the erroneous thinking that man can define what is good and therefore appropriate behavior. Surely it’s better to allow someone to kill himself peacefully than to eventually die a horribly suffering death. NO! It’s God and His Word that defines what is right and good. Only God has the right to give life and take life away. As Job says after terrible suffering, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” God loves life and is the creator of it (Gen. 1:27, Psalm 139:13), and only he can take it away.

Freedom is the new untouchable of our society. Woe to anyone who dares to infringe one someone’s rights. But again, what is freedom? The Bible clearly assumes that only in following the law of God do we experience freedom (Gal. 5:1, I Peter. 2:16, John 8:32). Government, individuals, and especially Christians are not to pursue a society that gives people the “freedom” to do wrong.”

It’s no surprise that abortion has led to assisted suicide of the terminally ill and then further to the possible assisted suicide of the mentally ill. When society, instead of God’s Word, begins to define what is good and lawful, the consequences are seemingly limitless. The European laws have deemed individuals as the ultimate barometer of truth and ethics. When government allows sinful individuals to believe the lie that “good” is in the eye of the beholder, then individuals apart from the grace of God will act selfishly and sinfully. Romans 13:3-4. and I Peter 2:13-14 states that a government’s duty is to reward what is good and punish what is evil. As Eric Liddell “God made countries and God made Kings” God has placed rulers in power, and their job is to uphold the law of God thereby punishing what is contrary to it. God’s law clearly states we never have the right to kill. Killing, even in the name of a greater good, is never right.

To think what might be the next step is appalling. If the assisted suicide law extends to the mentally ill, what’s to stop it from eventually extending to the extremely depressed? If someone is so depressed that he desires to end his life peacefully, who are we to step in and stop him? What’s to stop the law to extending to paraplegics who no longer want to live in a wheelchair? We need to beg God for mercy for the sins of our own country involving abortion, pray for renewed hearts, and turn back to the Word of God. Matt. 4:4.

13 Comments:

At 3:15 PM, Blogger Charles Blanchard said...

Government, individuals, and especially Christians are not to pursue a society that gives people the “freedom” to do wrong.

On the contrary, it's completely Biblical for the civil government to not criminalize certain wrongs. If the civil government had God-given license to force any and every law of God on its subsidiaries (at the tip of a sword), it would necessarily overstep its God-given boundary of influence. Where that boundary is is up for debate, but that it exists is a premise that both Protestant and Catholic traditions have held for a long time (and can be Biblically supported, I believe). I think you're completely right on the specific issues of euthanasia and abortion (because the job of the civil government is to act as a mediator among various and sundry individuals and subsidiary associations among men, to make sure no one else oversteps their sphere of authority; abortion and euthanasia are clear-cut cases of one group overstepping their authority at the expense of another), but if you take your reasoning on its full course (that they should be criminalized simply because they're wrong), then you would have to advocate that the civil government be constantly present in our homes and churches to make sure we're following the law of God. To place that much power in the hands of the civil authority is to set up a situation where the civil government is viewed as the determinant of what is right and wrong.

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

In some ways this whole thing is a reaction to medical progress. Doctors and pharmacists never made the claim to cure all ills or ease all pain, but our culture has decided to put those demands on them anyways. So what happens when a group of elderly gets sick after it has bought into this idea? They can't handle the pain and they want a way out.

This is also an attempt from the unbelieving world to remove the sting of death, but the only true way to do that is to put your faith in the resurrected and returning Christ, who will conquer death and end pain and suffering (amen!).

Therefore, this whole European action receives an "Unmanly" award from myself, and I hope other blog readers join in.

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger Alex said...

"On the contrary, it's completely Biblical for the civil government to not criminalize certain wrongs."

- There are no biblical mandates to the civil government, only for the Church in how it is to exist in an already/not-yet kingdom amdist a civil government. Your justifying an argument that isn't there, your confusing reformational issues with theonomic concerns. The issue rests in anthropological considerations, namely that fallen man attempts to interpret it's own world apart from supra revelation - Ethics are then rationally determined. Ironically when rationality becomes the Ethical method, one can rationalize themselves out of any Ethic.

I concur with Daniel - it's unmanly to kill weak people.

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger Luke said...

No biblical mandates to the civil government? How do you explain Rom. 13?

 
At 11:27 PM, Blogger Alex said...

Romans 13 - The church as it is to relate to the civil government, Paul is addressing the Church, not the government.

 
At 12:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This logic sounds all to familiar-Nazi Germany.

I suppose this is what happens when you opperate under antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

I'm certainly not looking for my government to legislate from the special revelation in the Bible or even from a theistic perspective but from, "self evident" and "unalienable rights" given by "Natures God" (Diestic, polythesitc, pantheistic, whatever), that is objective moral law (Rom. 2:12-15). Ironically, of course, this moral law or natural law, whatever you want to call it, pretty much boils dow to the 2nd tablet of the Ten Commandments.

Brian,
Good to hear from you. Be careful out there.

 
At 3:19 AM, Blogger joel kimmel said...

don't know much about supra revelation, anthropological considerations, or theonomic concerns (i'll hit up wikipedia shortly), but i've been thinking about some of these things lately. this post was pretty timely. it is intriguing to me to see so clearly the effects of the fall thousands of years later. our race has historically tried so hard to reverse these effects, from Israel to Nazi Germany, and what have we finally done with the common grace of God (in this case chiefly medical advancement) but legalize the killing of the image of God in an attempt to ease the suffering brought about by the fall. it's quite ironic that Adam was told he would surely die if he ate, but yet God saw fit to institute his Covenant of Grace, Adam lived, and here we are having come full circle to legally killing people.

 
At 5:08 PM, Blogger Brian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger Brian said...

Lots of big words being thrown around. I'll just be honest, I ain't smart enough to know the meaning of some of them. But:

It's not ironic that the moral law boils down to the second tablet of 10 commandments. One has to look at something to define what is good. Peter tells us God sends government "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."

So naturally, what is good? The 10 commandments...it is not ironic.

Trae, good to talk to you yesterday. I made it out alive.

 
At 6:48 PM, Blogger kurt said...

I like the debate. I just found this guy on youtube...Pastor Tony Smith...here are a couple excerpts from his sermons...

Tony takes on Women Preachers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849kw_X4OGg

Tony on Benny Hinn & Hair Peices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44cceWK4X_M

Tony on the Crocodile Hunter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMQKtvkQ2E

Tony on Modesty in Dress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrg7L5eyMxI

I have a feeling that my preaching would be way cooler if I had two guys with bibles behind me saying "that's right" and "not many" everytime I wanted them to. In short, this guy should teach homiletics at Westminster.

 
At 11:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was being facetious about the irony of the 2nd tablet of the Ten Commandents. Sometimes I forget that when I write the reader isn't privy to the tone (in my head) that I am attempting to implicate in my written words. Next time I will write in the third person using adjective to describe my tone. So,obsolutely, there is no irony in the natural law being analogous to the second tablet of the Ten Commandments.

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Brian said...

I need me a preaching posse. That would be awesome.

 
At 2:48 PM, Blogger Charles Blanchard said...

I completely agree with all on the premise that our civil law must have a basis in something other than our own reason or our own tradition. I also agree that the best source available (by a long shot) is the Word of God. However, there's a whole lot that's not in the Word of God, and there's a whole lot that is. For example, the sixth commandment forbids some spoken words, in addition to murder (as well as a lot of thoughts). Obviously, no one is in favor of the civil government handing out citations for harsh words spoken to one another. Therefore, there must be some other determinant of what is a legitimate subject of the civil law, something besides a simple recitation of what is right and wrong.

I think the answer lies in the nature of man, and the inherent tension between man as an individual and man as a member of community (the same way that God exists as three distinct persons, yet is also one perfect community). The issue is further complicated when you take into account that there are other, smaller communities within the larger political community of The United States. There is explicit Scriptural support for maintaining the primacy of authority of at least two of those subsidiary communities over the authority of the civil government, at least within their own spheres of authority. Those two are the family and the church.

Anyway, I agree with Alex in that Scripture doesn't command a certain form of government, or certain degree of government authority (besides Scriptures obvious grants of power to the family and the church). However, just as those of us of reformed ilk will strenuously argue that Scripture commends a certain form of church government, I also strenuously argue that Scripture commends certain forms of civil government, and degrees of governmental authority over others.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home