A vote for suicide or misguided compassion?
In the wake of a historic election most media coverage and talk rightfully surrounds the election of the next President of the United States. But the shift to a Democratic president has, in my opinion, more to say about frustration in the economy and other political issues and less to say about the shift in American culture. But a vote in the state of Washington speaks volumes of our culture change.
On the Fox News Website it states, "In Washington, voters gave solid approval to an initiative modeled after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, which allows a terminally ill person to be prescribed lethal medication they can administer to themselves. Since Oregon's law took effect in 1997, more than 340 people -- mostly ailing with cancer -- have used it to end their lives."
It is now legal for persons in Washington to gain access and administer themselves drugs that will kill them. Legal Suicide? This is state number 2 to allow such a law by the people. Make no mistake this is suicide and it is wrong. It is wrong for a person to take a life whether someone else or their own without proper cause. It is only in the hands of a government to properly enact war, justice, and protection and individuals to defend against threats of life and limb. But to grant a doctor the legal right to prescribe drugs for the purpose of ending life without proper cause and individuals the legal access to drugs for the purpose of ending their own lives is scary at best.
I would hope the vote is evidence of a misguided compassion for those suffering from terminal situations rather than a shift in opinion of the cultural definition of life, but I fear that it is not. This is only evidence that our culture is quickly moving towards a prideful worldview where our opinion of who lives or dies exceeds and is not to be submitted to our Creator God. In a way choosing to legalize suicide is another way our culture is saying no to God and His sovereign rule.
We must be a compassionate people but not at the expense of truth and obedience to Jesus Christ the Truth himself.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Proverbs 3:5
9 comments:
It is only in the hands of a government to properly enact war, justice, and protection and individuals to defend against threats of life and limb.
This sentence made me ponder. I'm interested in hearing how you make the delineation between what I'm to do and what government is to do.
My stance, as it relates to the taking and preserving of life specifically, is two fold. First the government's responsibility is to be God's agent in preserving a good and orderly society and is to that end authorized as God deems right to provide its citizens with protection against wrongdoing, enact war against threats of life, and execute judgment against those rightfully found as law breakers.
Romans 13:1-7 says " Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
We are subject to those authorities so long as they are in line with the scriptures and the good of God's word. In this instance the act of allowing suicide even if chosen by the people and defended as legal by the authoritative government is not then found as right since the authority of God far exceeds the authority of man.
As for the rights of an individual to protect life and limb, it is right for a person to defend oneself in the instance of threat of life and limb, or to defend others when needed. Not for the intent of personal justice but for preserving life and safety. Once the threat is dealt with the following actions should then be in the hands of the authorities delegated by the government.
For instance if someone were to break into my home and threaten my and my families safety then it is right for me to defend them and myself in an effort to preserve life and well being, even if by chance it causes death on the part of the wrongdoer. It is however beyond my authority to purposefully seek out the death of such person to execute my own judgment on the individual.
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
This verse does not advocate passivity, but rather a trust in God's provision to change the heart of one's enemy. WE must be careful to draw the line between vengeance and necessary defense. This is of course an abstract and nebulous line but one none the less that must be made.
I hope I wasn't to confusing :)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. The line is nebulous indeed. It's nebulous for me, because I look at Jesus and don't see a line. He never found it necessary to defend Himself. He also said that we should love our enemies. So is it more loving to allow an attacker to hurt my family or use force to protect my family's wellbeing and prevent the attacker from committing a more serious offense.
Whatever's right, my conscience is not heavily burdened by thoughts of a defensive smack down. In light of Jesus' life and teaching, however, I'm open to being wrong.
I am sure you are not lying awake at night fretting over this so I shall be brief :)
There are no examples of Christ being attacked physically in need of defense where he was not miraculously removed save the cross which was an intentional willful act on the part of Christ, which of course was to take the wrath of sin and the only way of redemption.
We do see in the OT some more evidence of accidental death resulting in the protection of the one who killed.
"“Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die."
"not only if he did not intend to kill him, but did not even cherish the intention of smiting him, or of doing him harm from hatred and enmity." Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testement.
The distinction then lies in motive and cause. Was it intentional and of willful act or was it accidental. Was the action stopped that caused the harm once able? All questions that come into play I suppose. I would however encourage us to look to more scripture than just Christ's teachings while hear on earth to resolve the answer to the questions since many of the teaching of Christ in relation to enemies and persecution were in the context of persecution for the sake of the Kingdom rather than the issue of crime against individuals and/or family. In which case enduring would be of holy and righteous behavior for the sake of the kingdom.
Thanks for helping me think this through. I agree that we should look to more scripture than just Jesus' teaching, but I'm also reminded of when Jesus would quote the Law only to restate it. Instead of "an eye for an eye," we should "not resist an evil person."
And shouldn't we be living every breath as citizens of His kingdom?
Is Jesus setting up a parallel government or a new one that is overtaking the old? If I'm to resist my earthly government when it wants to restrict my freedom under God's kingdom, shouldn't I also be quick to give up my earthly rights where God's kingdom places greater restriction? Isn't that what makes us seem so weird, leading to our persecution in the first place? Can I end this comment without asking another rhetorical question?
You have to know that the questions aren’t rhetorical when you are asking them to me
I think you are running into the old discussion of the already not yet principle. God has established his Kingdom and we are citizen’s there in but it is not yet fully manifested on this earth and will not be until the return of Christ.
One has to be very cautious of an over-realized eschatology where we expect all aspects of the coming kingdom to work in this world in the exact same ways. When the Kingdom of God comes into conflict with the ways of this world or as Augustine called them the “City of God and the City of Man” then we should of course adhere to the ways of God. But there are events in a fallen world that will take place because of sin that are not intentionally against the kingdom of God by the individual committing the wrongdoing and are a basic product of sin.
Granted all sin is in opposition to God but God has also shown us ways to navigate this world in the face of a fallen world. Without getting into a discussion of what laws are binding and which are not we must agree that all show us the character and ways of God. In the law we see pictures of God’s national and individual wisdom in navigating as a Kingdom citizen in a world that is not kingdom citizens.
I am not saying that we act in parallel authority because God’s kingdom will replace the current. But as of now the Kingdom of God advances one heart at a time through the gospel, which is what brings persecution. It will only replace the authority of this world completely at the coming of Christ. Until that time the earthly authorities are established to hold a fallen society by the sword, in other words, by discipline, to an orderly and civil action.
There are times as individuals when force is required to suppress evil though I do not advocate it at all times. I must say I am not a pacifist and I will not allow injury to my family if I am able to restrain it. If my wife and children cannot trust my protection on their behalf when called for then I have failed as their provider and keeper.
Anymore rhetorical questions that I partly answer to only increase the number of questions?
Nope. A line has been drawn.
That is a bit nebulous dont you think
ha ha
And ambiguous.
Post a Comment