|
LCA RETREAT: "Deliver Us
From Evil" Mannum, 67 May 2006 Elective: Good and Evil in
Ethics How do I / Christians
contribute to doing good? Pastor Tim Kowald The USA comedian, Jack Benny, was a master
of the carefully timed, pregnant pause. He and his writers used it to set up
what is popularly believed to be (but in reality is not) the longest laugh in
radio history. In a sketch, Benny (who cultivated the public persona of being a
tightwad) was walking down an alley when a street robber accosted him, demanding,
"Your money or your life!" Benny paused, and paused, and paused, and
the studio audience knowing his skinflint character laughed loud and long.
Eventually, impatiently, the robber repeated his demand: "Look, pal! I
said your money or your life!" Benny snapped back, "I'm thinking it
over!" Ah
Decisions. Decisions. But that is our world we are called on
to make decisions of all kinds, from deciding what particular ice cream we want
through to which needy charity to support through to decisions involving life
and death. Somewhere in many of our decisions, to a
greater or lesser extent, ethics is involved. Very simplistically, ethics is
about (deciding what are) right and wrong human motives and behaviour. The
purchase of an ice cream is not in itself a matter of ethical concern; when,
however, it is related to other aspects of life such as one's weight and
related-health questions, or, in the spirit of Judas, one raises the matter of
whether the ice cream money ought have been directed to the poor (cf John 12:5)
we are taking steps into the realm of ethics. As I said, simplistically, ethics is about
right and wrong human motives and behaviour. Ethics is a very human
matter. A rock, for example, does not and cannot act ethically; it has no motives
or actions of its own. It just is. But it can be used by human beings in right
ways (eg, road-building) or in wrong ways (cf vandalism; murder). Similarly we
could speak of a myriad of other things like nuclear power or plastic surgery
or scalpels or microscopes or medicines. But when humans get involved in the
use of these, ethics is involved, and people are observed and adjudged by themselves and/or by others to be ethical or not. At base,
ethics is about being truly human. The trouble is, there appears to be no one
agreed philosophy or system
of ethics to help people make decisions that avoid evil and that bring good to
bear. All manner of ethics systems have been proposed. Let me list here some
chief examples. There is Utilitarianism's credo of 'the greatest happiness for
the greatest number' with its kindred thought, 'the ends justifies the means'
(but such thinking leaves the powerless vulnerable). There is the
constructionism view that life and relationships are simply constructs (which
means that, for example, if there are no innate human rights but that they are
all bestowed, then at the wish of whichever powerful person these rights can be
removed; a most graphic example of this is the end result of social darwinism
as practised in Nazi Germany in the 1940s). There is the humanist promotion of
ethics in which the key words are non-religious (and if one is religious, then
expression of the particular faith ought to be private and kept separate from
other aspects of life such as medical research), inclusivity, openness,
tolerant, permissive, affectionate, feelings (resulting ultimately in
difficulties in deciding anything as good or evil; how really could the AFL
have decided on the debacle re 'drawn' result of the recent St Kilda-Fremantle
game?). And if we throw religion and its rules
into the ethical decision-making mix, the picture is no less clear or helpful
in many respects. Gene Veith, in his important book The Spirituality of the
Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals (Concordia Publishing Hopuse, St
Louis, 1999, 92-96), while not speaking directly on ethics*, relates something of the problems for human
living that arise when religion (and more specifically, Christianity) and
culture interact. He examines briefly four ineffectual interactions. I
summarise: (a) when treated as identical ie, 'spiritual beliefs serve to
sanction social practices', influencing (as in Islam, eg) dress, diet, social
law and language. Experience reveals that such societies are no more ethical or
moral than non-theocratic societies oppressions, injustices, inhumanities and
the like exist in such socities as much as anywhere; (b) 'culture should rule
the church' if the church is to remain culturally relevant. Common sense would
indicate that, if the church has nothing different to offer from society, then
why should people listen to the church?; (c) the role of the church is to be a
social reformer, '[t]hrough legislation, political power, and social
engineering they believe that society can be reorganized so as to follow God's
moral law.' While much good might result, the danger is of the church losing
its supernatural focus to become 'just another worldly institution', finding
itself caught up bandaging people's circumstances and not their souls; and
lastly (d) withdrawal from the sinful world in varying degrees, from
asceticism's denial of any (most) pleasures through to entertainments, but only
as long as these 'have an explicit Christian content.' True, Christians are
called by the Lord out of sinful ways and to denial of worldiness, yet He also
calls His followers into service of all people that they might come to the
truth and be saved. Further, such enclave-living is not free of political
games, status seeking, jealousies, personality conflicts, overt sin, and other
worldly concerns. Into this mix, throw verbal engineering (=
benefits peddling) which always precedes social engineering. Science
correspondent for Reason magazine and author of the publication Liberation
Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution
(Prometheus Books, 2005), Ronald Bailey, is one of the latest to engage. 'Rage
against the forces that deny us a future idyll', he says. He hopes for 'a
family reunion in which five generations are playing together. Great-great
grandma, at 150 years old, will be as vital, with muscle tone as firm and skin
as elastic, as her 30-year-old great-great-granddaughter with whom she's
playing tennis
. By the middle of this century humanity may see 20 to 40-year
leaps in average life spans, human bodies and minds enhanced by advanced drugs
and other biotherapies, the conquest of most infectious and degenerative
diseases, and genetic science that allows parents to ensure their children have
stronger immune systems, more athletic bodies and cleverer brains. Even the
possibility of immortality beckons.' Those who oppose his views of a head-long
rush into the new biotechnologies he labels as 'partisans of mortality' who
basically relish death and misery, while referring to his side of things as the
'party of life' whose focus is wholeness and wellbeing. Bailey's push for
unbridled progress has been called a 'coercive utopianism', a more gung-ho
expression of the well-intentioned utopianism we are already fed through our
media, where we are asked not to gainsay but to sanction in our hearts and in
legislation all research that is compassionate, that aims at therapies
to relieve suffering, however the therapies might result. We are not asked to
consider the outcomes of having a Pol Pot living for 300 years, nor that
wearing a white lab coat does not make a researcher immune from the desire for
fame and fortune, for example, nor if the highest good of man is just to
prolong his life rather than to relate it to simple care of a man in need and
of perhaps making him more noble, virtuous and civil. We are nearer now to being ethically able. We have recognized that most people do
ethical decision-making as if it were simply a problem-solving exercise. Much
good for people might result from such an approach. But, remembering our Lord's
declaration in Mark 7:6-13, is this yet the ethical, the good, life, or simply
the pursuit and construction of some brand of a utopia? Which is, in reality,
just a prettying up of a bad situation? (If that's all we need in ethics, then
Rex Jory's opinions [eg, The Advertiser, 4/5/06, his Opinion re
the work of society's 'good samaritans' spoilt by the selfish] are all the
sermons we need). Is that what life, and ethical living, is
really about a heaven on earth built by human efforts? Is that doing good? Is
that the Life our Lord Jesus taught and lived and died and rose to bring to
being for all people? So, what is ethics as far as Christians are concerned?
What does it look like? The uniqueness of Christian ethics is that
it approaches the issues in daily living not by asking, 'What should I do?' (=
problem solving) but by asking 'What does this mean? How does this look for a
child of God?' For Christians, ethics is more than a set of 'do's' and
'don'ts'; it is a way of living undertaken by those who now know their place. Remember, earlier, we acknowledged that
ethics is at base about being truly human. That is about us knowing that we are
'between beast and God' (Bernard Knox). The constant revelation and confession
of the Scriptures is that we humans are creatures, whose placement is above the
rest of creation in order to serve all creation as God's vice-regents, and not
as gods ourselves. Coming from the earth, our spirituality and life is not to
lose its earthy tone. But it did, when we, through Adam and Eve,
grasped the offer to be gods in our own right. Paradoxically, we still think we
can have all that we lost by being gods. In our lack of contentment, we remain
falsely human, tending to bend everything to our ends and the fruits are seen
in acting barbarically, coldly, pitilessly, selfishly. That would be our place but for Jesus.
Throughout His ministry, the Gospel writers depict Jesus, both the
representative Israelite and representative man, as one who stands between the
beasts and God. Following His baptism, the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness
where, St Mark writes, 'He was with the wild beasts'. In his commentary#, D E Nineham suggests of these beasts that 'they
are thought of as subject and friendly to' Jesus. Therefore, the verse 'should
be understood against the background of the common Jewish idea that the beasts
are subject to the righteous man and do him no harm.' That is, Jesus exercises
Adam's dominion over the animals. He is where one is truly human, obedient, in
God's image, between the animals and God. And, at the end of Jesus' earthly
ministry, as the vicarious one for the world of sinners, Jesus hangs between
God and all creation, the victim of human 'beastliness' and the sacrifice that
meets divine justice on, and opens heavenly reconciling mercy to, sinners. That
mercy culminates in Jesus' resurrection, the resurrection of the body, for
death has no rightful claim to the innocent. Yes, true humanity and innocence go
together, in Christ. Life, innocence, love, freedom, newness of life. It is all
gifted by God's Spirit through God's Word and Baptism and the Lord's Supper
so, forgiveness, life and salvation are ours. Hence 1 John 4:19: 'We love,
because He [God] first loved us', noting, of course, that 'love' and 'truth'
belong together (cf Romans 12:9). Deathliness in thought or word or deed is no
longer characteristic, for 'I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer
I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I
live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.' (Gal
2:20). We live then, in Christ, between God and
the beasts, taking up our given vice-regency eagerly, loving and serving all,
being generous in every situation, bringing life where deathly ways have been
practiced, trusting God to uphold, keep and provide for us, persevering in all
that is noble and good and true though everything thing and everyone is against
us that is our new being at work, moved to breathe life into the world without
concern about success (cf the spirit of Luke 14:13-14; also, Luke 10:30-37).
This is just who we are, because of Whose we now are through Christ. We live
always coram Deo, before the face and heart of the Lord. And when we
fail our transformation by God, honesty about His holiness and our unholiness,
fuelled by confidence in Christ's atoning self-sacrifice for us, leads us to
give away excuses and justifications and to seek again the Lord's forgiveness
that we may go on faithfully again, His Word and will forming and guiding us.
Life is not so much about right and wrong as about being mortals who are true
or false before the Lord God. So, the aim is not utopian nor
perfectionism. To use doctrinal terms, we simply take up our vocations and
stations in life with the motives of otherworldly people for the good of this
world. We live faithfully as citizens of two kingdoms. We love, because He
first loved us. Does this mean there is to be no problem
solving at all? Of course not. That would be to deny the
Lord gifting us in ways that are to serve and benefit others. It's just not
about mere problem solving; rather, problem solving is opportunity and
motivation for us to serve, to bring life and so, the presence of God to
bear for good. Therefore, for example, regarding
questions on reproductive issues (such as IVF, surrogate motherhood, abortion,
embryonic stem cell research, human cloning), we re-visit God's will to
understand His intention and meaning for marriage and childbearing as the
foundation for our decision-making in these areas. The other side of that coin,
naturally, is to stand against all ideas and actions that would dismiss that
foundation and leave people open to exploitation and manipulation (such as
embryonic stem cell research, and research that mixes human embryos with animal
genetic material just to see what happens). It is life lived acceptingly-conscious of
our limits, especially recognizing that we are mortal. Mortality appears as a
constant spectre of human beings. Even the birth of one like oneself, from
one's own substance, nods in the direction of our mortality, for this is the
new generation to take our place (though never precisely replacing us). There are those who consider that, because
having children is something people want for their life to be complete,
humanity ought to use all technical skills available to achieve that desire,
even for a child of a particular sort. And why set limits on considering a
'child of a particular sort' not just in respect of gender, but why not
genetically augment that child to give it better opportunities in life? Why not
design the child ('quality control')? How do Christians think ethically here? Our own creatureliness, our own
recognition that God has made us, and made us as a gift for the world, removes
from us any justification to consider a child as our product, our project. A
child is a gift to be received, a divine blessing given into our arms,
springing from us as parents having given ourselves in love to each other. A
product, made to satisfy our aims, we control. A gift is received, welcomed, as
one of us, unconditionally. And all along, through all the pains of
raising them to faithful life under God, we know there will be a parting our
time together will be severed, at some point; death will intervene. Here too
the temptation is to do good but from a sense of mastery. Often two directions open up viz., the
striving to extend life as long as possible, or aiming at death when the effort
seems no longer to be worth it. Both spring from the desire to assert some
mastery. But life is not essentially a question of
duration. We come from God; we are significant, we have meaning, in whatever
condition we find ourselves. Our deepest need is for God, St Augustine reminds
us ('our hearts are restless till they find their rest in [God]') and if He
is there when a sparrow falls from the sky, then He surely is present when one
who is between the beasts and Himself dies. Our often powerless human
presence is not just that; Christ lives within, so through us too journeying
with others in the valley of the shadow of death He is there, comforting,
strengthening, upholding, loving. And our tears, those tracks of love etching
our faces, mysteriously, bring an eternal significance that is at least
therapeutic, if not salvific, for the shadowed one. Nor should we embrace death for anyone as
if it were an unqualified good, as if people become beasts to be put out of
their misery. A child of the God of life, in such a situation, cannot see this
choice (whether it be, for example, for euthanasia of an adult or abortion of
an infant in whom prenatal screening has detected severe defects 'severe' can
be variously interpreted) as a fitting role for human beings which threatens
the fundamental human capacity to love, treating it as if it had no capacity
for endurance. I realise we are now treading into the
area of Theodicy the meaning of suffering and God's place there in my
promotion of human willingness to accept our limits, to accept that there may
well be suffering which could be relieved but ought not, because there is not
fittingly human way to do so. Suffice it to say here again (before we begin
contemplation of ethical decision-making on specific cases) that the sufferings
we bear are real and terrible, but they are not ultimate. And as great a crisis
as physical suffering is, the deeper problem is the abandonment and aloneness
they seem to bring, with that inner condemnation that we deserve worse. But we
can endure in the sympathy of others, in their suffering with us, their
entering the dark world of our griefs (Oliver O'Donovan). That is our God. He does not live free of
our sorrows, but takes them to Himself. He gave and gives Himself so that we
may not simply be governed by our sorrows and that we may still have life in
His name, free to be neither beast nor gods, but human in, with and under the
Lord of all. In respect of the workshop, these
introductory remarks regarding how Christians do ethics are now followed by
discussion on anything from these opening remarks that the group wanted to
clarify or comment on; also the following newspaper snippets, cases, and
comments are presented as examples of situations that face society today and
discussion of which might assist participants to practice ethics as described
above. The lead-in question is basically: "How can Chrisitans respond
faithfully in the following situation, whether it involves them directly or
they are observing the circumstances of others? What are faithful reactions?
What are unfaithful reactions?" Some scenarios for discussion: A couple in England have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority if they will let doctors select an IVF embryo who, if born, could provide tissue to treat their 20-month-old daughter's diamond blackfan anaemia. Mr and Mrs Charlie Mariethoz of Leicester are raising £40,000 for Charlotte's treatment, which would involve taking stem cells from the new child's umbilical cord. [This is Leicestershire, 2 May] Customarily, when embryos are chosen for their suitability to provide tissue for therapy, the embryos who are not selected are frozen, discarded or experimented on. A 63-year-old woman is reportedly seven months' pregnant through IVF. Dr Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychiatrist of Sussex, England, is said to have spent some £50,000 on treatment in Italy with Dr Severino Antinori. She is married with two children in their 20s. [The Times, 4 May] A court in Shanghai has recently given a three-year prison sentence to a Chinese man who helped his paralysed daughter to kill herself. Wang Tinghe's lawyer said the court had shown leniency because of the particulars of the case. Wang said that his daughter, Wang Qiong, had begged him to end her suffering. Euthanasia is not legal in China, but some lawmakers support its legalisation because of the country's aging population and the increasing cost of healthcare. [Washington Post, 27 April] Pro-life groups and Catholic leaders in Scotland have condemned the introduction of 'lunchtime abortions' in Scotland. NHS Lothian plans to start a pilot scheme in 2007, offering abortions in outpatient clinics under local anaesthetic. A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland said "The very serious danger with this method is that so little time goes into thinking through the consequences... The more streamlined the process becomes, the higher the risk that the woman will not fully consider her options. This will make abortion more convenient and make it less likely the woman will be able to pause for thought". Margaret Cuthill, of counselling charity British Victims of Abortion, commented "Many of the women who come for post-abortion counselling with our organisation say they felt like they had been put on a conveyer belt and this new procedure will add to that". [Christian Today, 2 May] A couple from Greater Manchester, UK, are trying to find a country that will take six frozen embryos for storage, while they look for a surrogate mother to bear them, the BBC reports. Under UK rules the embryos must be destroyed on 8th May when the 5 year time limit for storing embryos created for surrogacy expires. Martin Hymers and Michelle Hickman underwent IVF treatment after a post-pregnancy hysterectomy, with the intention of finding a surrogate mother for the embryos. However, they have not yet found a surrogate. They have seven further embryos due to be destroyed next year. [BBC News, 1 May] (an example of Christians/ the Church speaking up
properly) The bishop of Quilmes, Argentina in a recent homily defended Church teaching on human life as "not stubbornness, but a consequence of our faith". He also spoke out against the manipulation of pre-natal human life, saying that "the experiments that were done secretly at the Nazi concentration camps, in the name of the so-called Aryan race, are today done out in the open in the name of science and with the consent of lawmakers". [Catholic News Agency, 27 April] (another example of how
Christians can use helpful words) A teenager from Illinois, USA, who was paralyzed in a car accident is now beginning to walk again after receiving adult stem cell treatment. Jacki Rabon travelled to Lisbon, Portugal where Carlos Lima, a neurologist at Hospital Egaz Moniz, transplanted cells from the patient's nose to repair the damaged spinal cord. "I'm still really against abortion, so I'm not for embryonic stem cell therapy. But anything else that doesn't involve killing a baby is great" Jacki said. [Florida Baptist Witness, 27 April] A convicted murderer has lost his fight to be allowed IVF treatment. Kirk Dickson, 34, who is serving a life sentence, had accused the British government of breaching his right to have a family by denying him IVF facilities. His case was finally judged at the European court of human rights where it was ruled that he had no right to IVF. Judge Bonello said, "I am far from persuaded that giving life to a child in the meanest circumstances could be viewed as an exercise on promoting its finest interests." [Telegraph, 19 April] A psychologist has reiterated his view that children can never experience pain before birth. Dr Stuart Derbyshire, told the British Medical Journal that unborn babies' minds are not mature enough to sense trauma until after the baby has left the womb and starts to interact. His claim follows a study by University College Hospital, London, which contended that babies born at 25 weeks do feel pain outside the womb. Pro-life groups have said that pain is not the central issue. Paul Danon from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said, "Is it right to murder somebody if you anaesthetise them first?" [Mirror, 14 April] Dr Derbyshire, who is from Britain and now works at the University of Pittsburgh, USA, co-wrote an article with leading pro-abortion campaigner Ann Furedi in 1996 arguing that babies cannot feel pain until they begin to socialise. The founder of the Swiss clinic for assisted suicide, Dignitas, has said that people who have long-term depression should be able to choose to die. Ludwig Minelli said that terminal illness should not be the only reason that a person is helped to die and that depression could be a reason. [The Guardian, 17 April] * The pages of his book about to
receive comment do not refer directly to ethics; however, readers of his book
will find helpful related comment in his chapters on the doctrine of Vocation
and the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. # D
E Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Australia,
1972, p64. |