The Evangelical Scandal
Ron Sider says the movement is riddled with hypocrisy, and that it's time for serious change.
Interview by Stan Guthrie posted 04/13/2005 09:00 a.m.
Ron Sider has been a burr in the ethical saddle of the evangelical world for decades. His 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, took fellow believers to task for materialism in the face of desperate global needs. Sider, who is professor of theology, holistic ministry, and public policy at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has just released a new jeremiad: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker Books, 2005). In it, Sider plays off Mark Noll's critique of American evangelicalism's anti-intellectualism in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Sider says the current crisis encompasses both mind and heart. Stan Guthrie, Christianity Today's senior associate news editor, interviewed Sider.
What troubles you the most about evangelicals today?
The heart of the matter is the scandalous failure to live what we preach. The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit. The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending.
I'm a deeply committed evangelical. I've been committed to evangelical beliefs and to renewing the evangelical church all of my life. And the stats just break my heart. They make me weep. And somehow we must face that reality and change it.
You have often spoken about evangelical failures in society, for example, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. This latest critique covers not only social justice issues but also issues of personal morality. Was that intentional?
I've always been concerned with a whole range of biblical things. My commitment is to be biblically faithful, not to pick out one issue. But a good bit of my writing has dealt with the social issues that have called evangelicals to be more engaged, for example, with questions of poverty here and abroad. But you're right. This book is talking about a range of things that we evangelicals all agree are biblical demands.
Evangelical Christians and born-again Christians get divorced just as often, if not a little more, than the general population. And Barna has discovered that 90 percent of the born-again Christians who are divorced got divorced after they accepted Christ. On sexual promiscuity, we're probably doing a little better than the general population. Josh McDowell has estimated that maybe our evangelical youth are 10 percent better, Lord help us.
So at least it's a measurable difference.
Well it is measurable, although there's not so much hard [data] on that question as with some of the others. John Green, one of the best evangelical pollsters, says that about a third of all evangelicals say that premarital sex is okay. And about 15 percent say that adultery is okay.
Take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question, "Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?" the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.
Several studies find that physical and sexual abuse in theologically conservative homes is about the same as elsewhere. A large study of the Christian Reformed Church, a member of the nae, discovered that the frequency of physical and sexual abuse in this evangelical denomination was about the same as in the general population. One recent study, though, suggests that evangelical men who attend church regularly are less likely than the general population to commit domestic violence.
Materialism continues to be an incredible scandal. The average church member [from across the denominations] today gives about 2.6 percent of his or her income—a quarter of a tithe—to the church. Evangelicals used to be quite a lot better [in giving] than mainline denominations. But their giving has declined every year for several decades, and they're now getting very close to the norm. The average evangelical giving is about 4.2 percent—about two-fifths of a tithe.
Six percent of the "born-again" people tithe; nine percent of evangelicals do. Our income has gone up fabulously over the last 30-plus years. The average household income now in the U.S. is $42,000-plus. If the average American Christian tithed, we'd have another $143 billion.
In an era in which people holding to traditional values appear to be returning to center stage in politics, your book says that all is not well with our day-to-day choices in the private realm. In effect, you're accusing evangelicals of hypocrisy. Is that a fair conclusion?
I'm not doing that gladly. I'm doing that with tears in my eyes. We have to face the reality. It strikes me as being incredibly tragic and, yes, hypocritical for the evidence to show that precisely at a time when evangelicals have more political power to raise the issue of moral values in this society than they've had in a long time, the hard statistics on their own living show that they don't live what they're talking about. And sure, I'm afraid that's hypocrisy. So we have to set our own house in order before we're going to have either any integrity or any effectiveness in terms of helping the larger society recover wholesome two-parent families.
Has there ever been a time when the typical church has lived out the faith much better than now? Some might argue that this is just the nature of a sinful church before the Second Coming.We don't have polling data from the 1860s or the 1700s, so it's hard to answer that question with precision. But as we look back over church history, we see that there has been ebb and flow, and that at times the church was especially unfaithful and full of disobedience and hypocrisy. At other times there was powerful renewal, and large groups of Christians were wonderfully transformed. There are stories from the Welsh Revival in which the prisons were essentially empty and not too many people went to pubs because there had been a radical transformation of large numbers of people.
To what historical era would you compare our own time?
If the question is evangelical obedience, then we're certainly not in a time of revival.
How do we turn the ship around?
We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.
I would think that evangelicals would want to get biblical and define the gospel the way Jesus did—which is that it's the Good News of the kingdom. Then we see that it means that the way to get into this kingdom is through unconditional grace because Jesus died for us. But it also means there's now a new kingdom community of Jesus' disciples, and that embracing Jesus means not just getting fire insurance so that one doesn't go to hell, but it means embracing Jesus as Lord as well as Savior. And it means beginning to live as a part of his new community where everything is being transformed.
You're pinning at least a good chunk of the blame on American individualism.
There's no question that that's at the core of it. We tend to reduce salvation to just forgiveness of sins. And in the New Testament, salvation means that, thank God, but it also means the new transformed life that's possible in the power of the Spirit. And it means the new communal existence of the body of believers.
One of my favorite examples is the story of Zacchaeus. He is involved in social sin as a wicked tax collector. When he comes to Jesus, he gives away half his goods and pays back everything that he's taken wrongly. Jesus says at the end of the story, "Today salvation has come to this house." There's not a word in the text about forgiveness of sins. Now, I'm sure Jesus forgave the rascal's sins; he clearly needed it. But what the text talks about is the new transformed economic relationships that happen when Zacchaeus comes to Jesus.
Salvation is a lot more than just a new right relationship with God through forgiveness of sins. It's a new, transformed lifestyle that you can see visible in the body of believers.
Obviously to be a disciple means there's discipline. Do you see the neglect of church discipline in our day as a factor in this moral crisis?It's part of the larger question of recovering the New Testament understanding of the church. This culture is radically individualistic and relativistic. Whatever feels right for me is right for me; whatever feels right to you is right for you. That's the dominant value. It's considered outrageous for somebody to say somebody else is wrong.
But historic biblical faith understood the church as a new community. The basic New Testament images of the church are of the body of Christ, the people of God, and the family of God. All these stress the fact that we're talking about a new community—a new, visible social order. That new community in the New Testament was living so differently from the world that people would say, "Wow, what's going on here?" Jews were accepting Gentiles. The rich were accepting the poor and sharing with the poor. Men were accepting women as equals. It just astonished people because the church was so different from the world. It was countercultural.
Furthermore, [the New Testament church] understood that being a member of the body of Christ meant that you were accountable to each other. If one suffered, you all suffered. If one rejoiced, you all rejoiced. There was dramatic economic sharing in the New Testament, and there was church discipline. Jesus talked explicitly about church discipline in Matthew 18. Paul clearly had his churches live that out. All of the great traditions at the core of American evangelicalism, whether the Reformed tradition, the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, or the Anabaptist tradition, understood church discipline when they were strong and thriving. But very few evangelical churches these days have any serious appropriation and practice of church discipline.
Isn't that at least in part because church discipline has been abused or become legalistic and mean-spirited?Sure, that's a part of it. But we don't give up on marriage just because a lot of people have messed it up so badly. And we shouldn't give up on church discipline just because we've so often done it in a legalistic way. We have to recover the New Testament understanding. John Wesley put it wonderfully when he said church discipline is watching over one another in love.
Today, when so many congregations are abandoning biblical truth, you say in the book that all congregations need to be connected to a denomination. Are you serious?
Absolutely. It's simply wrong for a local congregation to have no accountability to a larger body. Now I'm not saying it has to be one of the current denominations. There can be new structures of accountability. Any congregations that feel they must break away from older denominations that are no longer faithful theologically or in terms of moral practice should be a part of some new denominational, organizational structure so they're not isolated lone rangers. They need to have a larger structure of accountability. It is flatly unbiblical and heretical for an individual congregation to say, "We'll just be by ourselves and not be accountable to anybody."
What is the church doing right?
The small-group movement is a hopeful sign. One of the most important ways we develop mutual accountability in the local congregation is through small groups. It's almost impossible to follow Jesus either in [matters of] sex and marriage or in money and helping the poor by yourself. You need the strong support of brothers and sisters. While the whole congregation should be like that, we need small groups to struggle with the specifics and talk about our struggles and get encouragement and prayer support. I wish every person in all of our churches with more than 50 members were in a small group.
What other things are contemporary evangelicals doing well?
Over the last 30 years, we've made significant progress in understanding that the mission of the church is both to do evangelism and to do social ministry. There's also growing understanding that we can't have a one-issue agenda as we get involved in public life. The recent National Association of Evangelicals declaration, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," explicitly rejects one-issue politics and says faithful evangelical political engagement will be based on a biblically balanced agenda. That means, yes, by all means, a concern with the sanctity of human life and with the renewal of the family. But it will also mean a concern for justice for the poor. It will mean concern for creation care, for human rights, and for peacemaking. We simply can't allow right-wing or left-wing politics to provide the political agenda.
What areas are you personally working on?
Over the years I've needed to continue to work at making sure that my personal spiritual life is solid in terms of time for prayer and devotions regularly. That continues to be an ongoing challenge. I really, passionately want every corner of my life to be submitted to Jesus Christ and biblical truth. Living that out in terms of my money continues to be a challenge. Nothing is easy. But if we make that our resolve and ask the Spirit to transform us, I think wonderful things can happen.
Are you hopeful about the matters that you've written about? Or are you ready to give up?
I'm personally, by nature, something of an optimist. That may not come through clearly in this book, but I think it's true. I'm genuinely enthusiastic by the renewal of the evangelical world in the last 50 years. It's been a tremendous movement of change and growth since Carl Henry wrote The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. There has been fabulous growth of evangelical colleges and seminaries, evangelical scholarship, evangelical churches. I pointed to the way that we've grown, I think, in understanding the mission of the church as being both evangelism and social ministry.
We've grown certainly in the number of evangelical agencies working with the poor. Fifty years ago World Vision was a Korean orphan's choir. Now it's a huge agency, and there are dozens of other evangelical multi-million-dollar relief-and-development agencies.
On some days I'm discouraged, and other days I think, Wow, the next few decades could be just fabulous. But what I'm sure about is that we won't get close to the promise and the fulfillment of what's possible unless we face head-on the scandalous way that we're currently not living what we're preaching.
Is it going to be the end of the evangelical movement if we don't do something about these problems?
The Lord doesn't take hypocrisy and disobedience lightly. He punishes, and there's an inevitable kind of decline that sets in if you are hypocritical and don't practice what you preach. It won't happen instantly; our institutions are strong. But over a period of time it certainly will mean major decline.
I find it incredibly ironic that in the last few months, the importance of political life nurturing moral values and wholesome families and so on is center stage. And then you have this astonishing data that evangelicals live just like the world in terms of divorce. And it's incredibly ironic that one of the issues—and one I agree vigorously with—is concerned with how public life affects marriage. I'm in favor of the marriage amendment. But at precisely a point in time when our political rhetoric as evangelicals has focused on that, we have to face the fact that we're not any different from the world. And that's just incredible hypocrisy and it undercuts our message to the larger society in a terrible way.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Thinking Straighter
Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
by James A. Beverley posted 04/08/2005 09:00 a.m.
Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers, has changed his mind about God. And he has agnostics worried.
Some are mystified and others are angry. Typical of many responses is this one skeptical blogger: "Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desperate attempt at salvation." Richard Carrier of The Secular Web even accuses him of "willfully sloppy scholarship."
His pedigree in philosophy explains the recent media frenzy and controversy. Raised in a Christian home and son of a famous Methodist minister, Flew became an atheist at age 15. A student of Gilbert Ryle's at Oxford, Flew won the prestigious John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy. He has written 26 books, many of them classics like God and Philosophy and How to Think Straight. A 1949 lecture given to C. S. Lewis's Oxford Socratic Club became one of the most widely published essays in philosophy. The Times Literary Supplement said Flew fomented a change in both the theological and philosophical worlds.
Flew taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading, and has lectured in North America, Australia, Africa, South America, and Asia. The Times of London referred to him as "one of the most renowned atheists of the past half-century, whose papers and lectures have formed the bedrock of unbelief for many adherents."
Last summer he hinted at his abandonment of naturalism in a letter to Philosophy Now. Rumors began circulating on the internet about Flew's inclinations towards belief in God, and then Richard Ostling broke the story in early December for the Associated Press. According to Craig Hazen, associate professor of comparative religions and apologetics at Biola, the school received more than 35,000 hits on their site that contains Flew's interview for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. At his home in Reading, west of London, Flew told me: "I have been simply amazed by the attention given to my change of mind."
So what exactly is the reason for and nature of his "change of mind"?
Jeffersonian DeistFlew has had to assure former students that he does not now believe in revealed religion. "Even one of my daughters asked if this meant we were going to say grace at meals," he said. "The answer is no."
Flew is also quick to point out that he is not a Christian. "I have become a deist like Thomas Jefferson." He cites his affinity with Einstein who believed in "an Intelligence that produced the integrative complexity of creation." To make things perfectly clear, he told me: "I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken."
"Are you Paul on the road to Damascus?" I asked him.
"Certainly not."
Comedian Jay Leno suggested a motive for the change on The Tonight Show: "Of course he believes in God now. He's 81 years old." It's something many agnostics have said more seriously. However, Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. "I don't want a future life. I have never wanted a future life," he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: "I want to be dead when I'm dead and that's an end to it." He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: "Goodbye. We shall never meet again."
Flew's U-turn on God lies in a far more significant reality. It is about evidence. "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads." I asked him if it was tough to change his mind. "No. It was not hard. I've always engaged in inquiry. If I am shown to have been wrong, well, okay, so I was wrong."
The Impact of Evangelical ScholarsActually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator. In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
I studied with Flew in 1985 in Toronto, and he told me then about the positive impression he had of emerging evangelical scholarship. That year Varghese had arranged a Dallas conference on God, and included atheists, like Flew, and theists. That same year Flew had his first debate with historian Gary Habermas of Liberty University on the resurrection of Jesus, recorded in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? They have debated twice since on the same topic.
Flew has also debated Terry Miethe, who holds doctorates in both philosophy and religion, on the existence of God, and he has been involved in philosophical exchanges with J. P. Moreland, another well-known Christian philosopher. In 1998 he had a major debate in Madison, Wisconsin, with William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the famous BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, the brilliant Catholic philosopher.
In Reading, I asked Flew more explicitly about the impact of these and other scholars. "Who amazes you the most of the defenders of Christian theism?"
He replied, "I would have to put Alvin Plantinga pretty high," and he also complimented Miethe, Moreland, and Craig for their philosophical skills. He regards Richard Swinburne, the Oxford philosophy of religion professor, as the leading figure in the United Kingdom. "There is really no competition to him." He said that Habermas has made "the most impressive case for Christian theism on the basis of New Testament writings."
These Christian philosophers have uniform respect for Flew as a person and as a thinker. Craig spoke of him as "an enduring figure in positivistic philosophy" and was "rather surprised by his giving up his atheistic views." He, Miethe, and Habermas have found Flew to be a perfect gentleman both in public debate and private conversations. Swinburne says Flew has always been a tough thinker, though less dogmatic as the years went by. Plantinga, the founder of the Society of Christian Philosophers, said that Flew's change is "a tribute to his open-mindedness as well as an indication of the strength of current broadly scientific arguments against atheism."
What Holds Him Back from Christianity?Flew's preference for deism and continued dislike of alleged revelation emerge from two deep impulses in his philosophy. First, Flew has an almost unshakable view against the supernatural, a view that he learned chiefly from David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Flew, a leading authority on Hume, wrote the classic essay on miracles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is rather surprising in Flew's dogmatism is that he believes Hume did not and could not prove that miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible. "If this is the case, why not be open to God's possible intervention?" I asked. He replied by saying that the laws of nature are so well established that testimonies about miracles are easy for him to ignore. He is not impressed by people who hear regularly from God. He did concede, reluctantly and after considerable discussion, that God could, in principle, puncture his bias against the supernatural.
Of more significance, Flew detests any notion that a loving God would send any of his creatures to eternal flames. He cannot fathom how intelligent Christians can believe this doctrine. He even said in his debate with Terry Miethe that he has entertained the thought that the Creator should punish, though not endlessly, only those who defend the notion of eternal torment. On this matter, Flew is willing to entertain fresh approaches to divine justice. In fact, he had just obtained Lewis's book The Great Divorce in order to assess Lewis's unique interpretation on the topic of judgment.
When I asked Flew about his broader case for deism, he asked rhetorically: "Why should God be concerned about what his creatures think about him anymore than he should be directly concerned with their conduct?" I reminded him of biblical verses that also ask rhetorically: "He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?" (Ps. 94:9) It seems incredible to argue that any human cares more about the world than God does. "Is the Creator really morally clueless?" I asked. Flew responded to what he called this "interesting argument" with openness. Moreland, who teaches at Biola, says he hopes that Flew "will become even more curious about whether or not God has ever made himself clearly known to humanity."
Unlike many other modern philosophers, Flew has a high regard for the person of Jesus. Early in the interview, he stated rather abruptly: "There's absolutely no good reason for believing in Islam, whereas in Christianity you have the charismatic figure of Jesus, the defining example of what is meant by charismatic." By charismatic, he means dynamic and impressive. He dismissed views that Jesus never existed as "ridiculous."
Later I asked, "Are you basically impressed with Jesus?"
"Oh yes. He is a defining instance of a charismatic figure, perplexing in many ways, of course." Beyond this, Flew remains agnostic about orthodox views of Jesus, though he has made some very positive remarks about the case for the Resurrection. In the journal Philosophia Christi he states: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." No, he still does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. However, he told me, the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."
Plantinga, the dean of Christian philosophers, told me that the radical change in Christian scholarship over Flew's career has been remarkable. When Flew originally attacked theism more than 50 years ago, there were few Christians working in philosophy. Now there are a large and growing number of scholars committed to intellectual defense of the gospel. It is, of course, no small matter that one of the world's leading philosophers has moved somewhat closer to the side of the angels.
James A. Beverley is professor of Christian apologetics at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. For more information on the interview with Flew, see Beverley's website at www.religionwatch.ca.
Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
by James A. Beverley posted 04/08/2005 09:00 a.m.
Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers, has changed his mind about God. And he has agnostics worried.
Some are mystified and others are angry. Typical of many responses is this one skeptical blogger: "Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desperate attempt at salvation." Richard Carrier of The Secular Web even accuses him of "willfully sloppy scholarship."
His pedigree in philosophy explains the recent media frenzy and controversy. Raised in a Christian home and son of a famous Methodist minister, Flew became an atheist at age 15. A student of Gilbert Ryle's at Oxford, Flew won the prestigious John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy. He has written 26 books, many of them classics like God and Philosophy and How to Think Straight. A 1949 lecture given to C. S. Lewis's Oxford Socratic Club became one of the most widely published essays in philosophy. The Times Literary Supplement said Flew fomented a change in both the theological and philosophical worlds.
Flew taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading, and has lectured in North America, Australia, Africa, South America, and Asia. The Times of London referred to him as "one of the most renowned atheists of the past half-century, whose papers and lectures have formed the bedrock of unbelief for many adherents."
Last summer he hinted at his abandonment of naturalism in a letter to Philosophy Now. Rumors began circulating on the internet about Flew's inclinations towards belief in God, and then Richard Ostling broke the story in early December for the Associated Press. According to Craig Hazen, associate professor of comparative religions and apologetics at Biola, the school received more than 35,000 hits on their site that contains Flew's interview for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. At his home in Reading, west of London, Flew told me: "I have been simply amazed by the attention given to my change of mind."
So what exactly is the reason for and nature of his "change of mind"?
Jeffersonian DeistFlew has had to assure former students that he does not now believe in revealed religion. "Even one of my daughters asked if this meant we were going to say grace at meals," he said. "The answer is no."
Flew is also quick to point out that he is not a Christian. "I have become a deist like Thomas Jefferson." He cites his affinity with Einstein who believed in "an Intelligence that produced the integrative complexity of creation." To make things perfectly clear, he told me: "I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken."
"Are you Paul on the road to Damascus?" I asked him.
"Certainly not."
Comedian Jay Leno suggested a motive for the change on The Tonight Show: "Of course he believes in God now. He's 81 years old." It's something many agnostics have said more seriously. However, Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. "I don't want a future life. I have never wanted a future life," he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: "I want to be dead when I'm dead and that's an end to it." He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: "Goodbye. We shall never meet again."
Flew's U-turn on God lies in a far more significant reality. It is about evidence. "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads." I asked him if it was tough to change his mind. "No. It was not hard. I've always engaged in inquiry. If I am shown to have been wrong, well, okay, so I was wrong."
The Impact of Evangelical ScholarsActually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator. In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
I studied with Flew in 1985 in Toronto, and he told me then about the positive impression he had of emerging evangelical scholarship. That year Varghese had arranged a Dallas conference on God, and included atheists, like Flew, and theists. That same year Flew had his first debate with historian Gary Habermas of Liberty University on the resurrection of Jesus, recorded in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? They have debated twice since on the same topic.
Flew has also debated Terry Miethe, who holds doctorates in both philosophy and religion, on the existence of God, and he has been involved in philosophical exchanges with J. P. Moreland, another well-known Christian philosopher. In 1998 he had a major debate in Madison, Wisconsin, with William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the famous BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, the brilliant Catholic philosopher.
In Reading, I asked Flew more explicitly about the impact of these and other scholars. "Who amazes you the most of the defenders of Christian theism?"
He replied, "I would have to put Alvin Plantinga pretty high," and he also complimented Miethe, Moreland, and Craig for their philosophical skills. He regards Richard Swinburne, the Oxford philosophy of religion professor, as the leading figure in the United Kingdom. "There is really no competition to him." He said that Habermas has made "the most impressive case for Christian theism on the basis of New Testament writings."
These Christian philosophers have uniform respect for Flew as a person and as a thinker. Craig spoke of him as "an enduring figure in positivistic philosophy" and was "rather surprised by his giving up his atheistic views." He, Miethe, and Habermas have found Flew to be a perfect gentleman both in public debate and private conversations. Swinburne says Flew has always been a tough thinker, though less dogmatic as the years went by. Plantinga, the founder of the Society of Christian Philosophers, said that Flew's change is "a tribute to his open-mindedness as well as an indication of the strength of current broadly scientific arguments against atheism."
What Holds Him Back from Christianity?Flew's preference for deism and continued dislike of alleged revelation emerge from two deep impulses in his philosophy. First, Flew has an almost unshakable view against the supernatural, a view that he learned chiefly from David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Flew, a leading authority on Hume, wrote the classic essay on miracles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is rather surprising in Flew's dogmatism is that he believes Hume did not and could not prove that miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible. "If this is the case, why not be open to God's possible intervention?" I asked. He replied by saying that the laws of nature are so well established that testimonies about miracles are easy for him to ignore. He is not impressed by people who hear regularly from God. He did concede, reluctantly and after considerable discussion, that God could, in principle, puncture his bias against the supernatural.
Of more significance, Flew detests any notion that a loving God would send any of his creatures to eternal flames. He cannot fathom how intelligent Christians can believe this doctrine. He even said in his debate with Terry Miethe that he has entertained the thought that the Creator should punish, though not endlessly, only those who defend the notion of eternal torment. On this matter, Flew is willing to entertain fresh approaches to divine justice. In fact, he had just obtained Lewis's book The Great Divorce in order to assess Lewis's unique interpretation on the topic of judgment.
When I asked Flew about his broader case for deism, he asked rhetorically: "Why should God be concerned about what his creatures think about him anymore than he should be directly concerned with their conduct?" I reminded him of biblical verses that also ask rhetorically: "He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?" (Ps. 94:9) It seems incredible to argue that any human cares more about the world than God does. "Is the Creator really morally clueless?" I asked. Flew responded to what he called this "interesting argument" with openness. Moreland, who teaches at Biola, says he hopes that Flew "will become even more curious about whether or not God has ever made himself clearly known to humanity."
Unlike many other modern philosophers, Flew has a high regard for the person of Jesus. Early in the interview, he stated rather abruptly: "There's absolutely no good reason for believing in Islam, whereas in Christianity you have the charismatic figure of Jesus, the defining example of what is meant by charismatic." By charismatic, he means dynamic and impressive. He dismissed views that Jesus never existed as "ridiculous."
Later I asked, "Are you basically impressed with Jesus?"
"Oh yes. He is a defining instance of a charismatic figure, perplexing in many ways, of course." Beyond this, Flew remains agnostic about orthodox views of Jesus, though he has made some very positive remarks about the case for the Resurrection. In the journal Philosophia Christi he states: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." No, he still does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. However, he told me, the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."
Plantinga, the dean of Christian philosophers, told me that the radical change in Christian scholarship over Flew's career has been remarkable. When Flew originally attacked theism more than 50 years ago, there were few Christians working in philosophy. Now there are a large and growing number of scholars committed to intellectual defense of the gospel. It is, of course, no small matter that one of the world's leading philosophers has moved somewhat closer to the side of the angels.
James A. Beverley is professor of Christian apologetics at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. For more information on the interview with Flew, see Beverley's website at www.religionwatch.ca.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Albert Mohler**Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary**Monday, April 4, 2005**John Paul II--The Man and His Legacy*The death of Pope John Paul II brings one of the Roman Catholic Church's longest papal reigns to an end and closes the last chapter on one of the most significant lives of our times. By any measure, John Paul II was one of the most influential figures on the world scene, leading over a billion Roman Catholics worldwide and exercising a significant influence on world affairs during some of the most tumultuous decades of the 20th century.Inevitably, his death raises fundamental questions about how evangelical Christians should understand the papacy itself, as well as those who hold the papal office. Given the low level of theological knowledge and the high emotionalism of the era, many evangelicals appear confused when confronted with an event like the death of a pope. Furthermore, evangelicals are more likely to have been aware of this pope in contrast with those who held the office in the past. In this age of mass communications and media, John Paul II has been one of the most publicized, televised, and celebrated public figures of our age.For evangelicals, the crucial question comes with the institution of the papacy itself. After all, the Reformation of the 16th century required a rejection of papal power and authority, and the Reformers soon came to understand the papacy as an unbiblical office that inevitably compromised the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Over time, the heirs of the Reformers came to understand that the papacy is a fundamentally unbiblical office that posits an earthly monarch as the earthly head of the church. Furthermore, this office is then invested with claims to spiritual and temporal power that are combined with claims of apostolic succession and serve as foundational pillars for the comprehensive claims of the Roman Catholic Church.The Protestant rejection of the papacy was no small matter, though some liberal Protestants and careless evangelicals seem to have forgotten why. Beyond this, the papacy is inextricably linked to the structure of Catholic theology and the superstructure of truth claims, practices, and doctrines that constitute Catholicism. Evangelical Christians simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation. With the death of John Paul II, evangelicals are confronted with a sensitive question: Can we recognize genuine virtues in a man who for over a quarter of a century held an office we must expressly reject?We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia. With bold strokes and a clear voice, this pope defended human life from the moment of conception until natural death. In his encyclical, /Evangelium Vitae/ (1995), he argued for an implacable opposition to what he called the "culture of death"--an age that would increasingly embrace death rather than life and forfeit human dignity on the altar of human autonomy and individual rights.In /Veritatis Splendor/ (1993), John Paul argued that the modern concept of freedom as unrestrained human liberty would lead to the destruction of Christian ethics and the undermining of all authority. In this powerful statement, the pope defended the very nature of truth against postmodern denials and a culture increasingly attracted to moral relativism.The legacy of this pope cannot be separated from the facts of his life. Born May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, just south of Krakow in Poland, Karol Wojtyla would come to adulthood in the context of Communist oppression. Throughout his life, he would identify himself as a Pole and a Slav, and the twists and turns of his biography would become a focus of world attention.Trained as an actor, Karol Wojtyla would later decide to enter the priesthood, following a calling that brought great respect in his native Poland. With remarkable speed, Father Wojtyla moved into the hierarchy of the church. He was consecrated a bishop in 1958--just 12 years after entering the priesthood. In 1964, he was installed as Archbishop of Krakow, and just three years later he was created a cardinal by Pope Paul VI.Long before he became a cardinal of the church, Karol Wojtyla had attracted the attention of the Vatican. He had studied in Rome and had developed a reputation in the academic circles of the church. Theologically, he was seen as a progressive, and he took an active part in the Second Vatican Council, called into session by Pope John XXIII.When Pope Paul VI died at Castel Gandolfo on August 6, 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla was already discussed as a potential successor. Nevertheless, when the College of Cardinals elected Albino Luciani on August 25, 1978, it looked as if Cardinal Wojtyla had lost his chance to become pope.All this changed on September 28, 1978, when Cardinal Luciani--now Pope John Paul I--died in his sleep during the night, barely a month after his election as pope.The election of Karol Wojtyla as pope came on October 16, 1978, and he immediately announced that he would take the name "John Paul II" as a way of honoring his immediate predecessor. Nevertheless, it was clear that this new pope would take the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church firmly in hand.In his early years, this Polish pope was known by millions of persons around the globe, primarily as a man who opposed Communist tyranny with personal courage and the weight of his papal office. John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope since 1522, and the historical importance of his election became clear as he used the full influence of his papal office to encourage the Solidarity movement in his native Poland.Along with President Ronald W. Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II saw Communism as an assault upon human dignity and the human spirit. Like Ronald Reagan, John Paul II grew in international stature after surviving an assassination attempt. In the case of John Paul II, the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly took his life was organized by the Bulgarian secret police, presumably under orders from the KGB in the Soviet Union.Evangelical Christians should honor the courage of this man and his historic role in bringing Communist tyranny to an end--at least within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. Added to this, we should honor his defense of human dignity and his eloquent and influential witness against abortion and the Culture of Death.Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern.Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces."In the end, evangelicals should be thankful for the personal virtues Pope John Paul II demonstrated, and for his advocacy on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity. Yet we cannot ignore the institution of the papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught, defended, and promulgated. As Roman Catholics mourn the passing of the pope, we should take care to respond with both compassion and conviction, fulfilling our own responsibility to take the measure of this man and his legacy._______________________________________________R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on /The Albert Mohler Program/, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to _www.albertmohler.com_ <http://www.albertmohler.com/>. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to _www.sbts.edu_ <http://www.sbts.edu/>. Send feedback to _mail@albertmohler.com_ .
Friday, April 01, 2005
A post from a friend of mine:Dear Sisters and Brothers,
I think that the Terri Schiavo case is complex because it pits competing
values against each other. On the one hand, the case seems relatively
simple, especially as it was presented by the mainstream press.
1. The first area of conflict has to do with whom basic decision-making
rests. With an underlying jurisprudence rooted in Scripture, and thousands
of years of legal tradition, the courts ruled that Terri's husband was her
primary care-giver, and the one in charge of these decisions.
2. In the American system, as it was understood prior to the U. S.
Constitution becoming somewhat self-contradictory and being interpreted
"dynamically" rather than "statically," these matters should rest with the
state courts and not involve the Federal judiciary.
3. We are increasingly able to sustain human existence through "heroic
measures" such as respirators. Do any of us want to be kept alive
indefinitely with negligible brain activity and no realistic hope of
recovery?
Yet none of those three issues is so black and white in the Schiavo case.
The trouble is that one has to dig beyond the daily newspaper or network
news to discover the other side of the coin.
1. Michael Schiavo, in effect, divorced Terri when he married another woman
by common law and is now raising two children with her. This is the heart
of the matter, and had it been legally settled, it would have prevented the
entire agonizing drama. Once it was legally established that Mr. Schiavo
had abandoned his wife for another woman, he should have been removed as her
primary legal custodian and that role should have reverted to Terri's
parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
2. It appears to me that Judge Greer made up his mind early on in this case
and then chose to ignore a lot of evidence thereafter that should have
caused him to reconsider his decision. Our legal system provides for
judicial review all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and we
are a nation under a written constitution, one interpreted by the judiciary.
However, once that document has been separated from its historical moorings,
this can lead to a judicial tyranny where one branch of our government not
only overrules the other two, but actually begins to function as a de facto
legislature.
What is the remedy for this? I don't know because I interpret Romans 13
very strictly and would never resort to violence, much less, take up arms
against the government. But there are lots of other people who don't take
the Bible into serious consideration, and they don't have a problem using
violence to right a wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the now,
self-excommunicated Baptist, George Greer, doesn't eventually meet a
twenty-first century John Brown like Paul Hill. That will be a sad day for
the Pro Life Movement. But were I a betting man, I wouldn't bet on poor
Judge Greer living a long, peaceful life, unless he moves out of the United
States. In the long run, I bet he'd rather be fed through a feeding tube
than to have to be accompanied by body-guards for the rest of his life.
3. Terri Schiavo was being fed through a feeding tube; that is a far cry
from a respirator. Back in 1974, I stood beside a member of my
congregation, watching his wife die after the doctors' disconnected the
devices that forced oxygenated blood to course through her veins. She died
within ten minutes of being disconnected. When the doctors proposed this
action, I had some reservations but supported my congregant's decision,
nevertheless. Looking back, I have no doubt that he made the right
decision. When my wife's mother came down with Alzheimer's disease back in
the early nineties, I watched its slow but steady progress as it stole her
mind and then her body. Alzheimer's is not a happy journey to the Celestial
City.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much
by her husband, then by my wife. We moved her to Central Louisiana about
fourteen months before she died because my father-in-law simply could no
longer tend to her by himself. For many months, he would alternate his time
staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then
on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the
hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and
dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death
around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed.
She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms.
We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The
nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her
care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day
the gangrenous, golf-ball-sized piece of necrotic tissue simply fell off; to
our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
In keeping with her living will, we did not allow "heroic measures," but we
always made sure that she had food and water. It would have been barbaric
to have denied her this comfort. For the last months of her life, she was
regularly given a morphine based drug for pain. I have no difficulty with a
physician administering pain-numbing drugs, even if they shorten somebody's
life. (Proverbs 31:6, 7: "Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his
poverty, and remember his misery no more.") But it is murder to administer
those same drugs beyond the smallest level that it takes to numb the pain
for the direct purpose of ending a human life.
Terri Schiavo's situation is all very, very sad, but it is a situation that
takes place many times a day throughout America. It's simply that in most
cases, people's relatives haven't come to hate each other so viscerally and
to express that hatred so spitefully. Nor do we have the two extreme wings
in the culture war lined up outside, each playing to the media.
Would I want to live by means of a respirator? Not unless it was a
temporary measure performed with a view to my recovery.
Would I want to live with a feeding tube? That is much more complex. I
would want food and water -- that's for sure -- but if I couldn't receive
them other than by a feeding tube, I'm not sure. That depends on other
circumstances. I wouldn't want them if I had been in a coma for a long time
and had no reasonable hope of recovery.
Who should make that decision?
I don't fully trust the medical industry -- it used to be a profession, and
there are still a good number of physicians who are professionals -- but
because of funding issues involving insurance companies and civil
authorities, I don't trust this industry the way many people still do. Do
you expect all these bureaucrats to act completely ethically, detached from
financial considerations, whether or not they wear the initials, M.D., after
their names?
I trust my government even less. As Christians, we should pray for the
civil authorities over us; we should respect their offices and obey their
commands that do not force us to sin. But we should never view government
as our friend, much less trust it, even though it functions under God's
sovereign purpose.
I trust my wife, and beyond her, I trust my children and my family called
Grace Presbyterian Church. I trust that they would do for me what I would
do for them.
If my wife were in a long-term coma, with no realistic prognosis for
recovery, I would order the doctors to disconnect her respirator. But I
would do my best to see that she was comfortable and as free from pain as
possible. I would make sure that she had food and water, even if it
required constant attention and a lot of personal effort to give her these
vital things. But if she couldn't receive nourishment without a feeding
tube, and if she was completely unable to let her will be known, and if
there were no realistic hope that her situation would ever improve, I would
order her feeding tube removed. It's what I would want done to me.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have
a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for
that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life." (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:4.)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
I think that the Terri Schiavo case is complex because it pits competing
values against each other. On the one hand, the case seems relatively
simple, especially as it was presented by the mainstream press.
1. The first area of conflict has to do with whom basic decision-making
rests. With an underlying jurisprudence rooted in Scripture, and thousands
of years of legal tradition, the courts ruled that Terri's husband was her
primary care-giver, and the one in charge of these decisions.
2. In the American system, as it was understood prior to the U. S.
Constitution becoming somewhat self-contradictory and being interpreted
"dynamically" rather than "statically," these matters should rest with the
state courts and not involve the Federal judiciary.
3. We are increasingly able to sustain human existence through "heroic
measures" such as respirators. Do any of us want to be kept alive
indefinitely with negligible brain activity and no realistic hope of
recovery?
Yet none of those three issues is so black and white in the Schiavo case.
The trouble is that one has to dig beyond the daily newspaper or network
news to discover the other side of the coin.
1. Michael Schiavo, in effect, divorced Terri when he married another woman
by common law and is now raising two children with her. This is the heart
of the matter, and had it been legally settled, it would have prevented the
entire agonizing drama. Once it was legally established that Mr. Schiavo
had abandoned his wife for another woman, he should have been removed as her
primary legal custodian and that role should have reverted to Terri's
parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
2. It appears to me that Judge Greer made up his mind early on in this case
and then chose to ignore a lot of evidence thereafter that should have
caused him to reconsider his decision. Our legal system provides for
judicial review all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and we
are a nation under a written constitution, one interpreted by the judiciary.
However, once that document has been separated from its historical moorings,
this can lead to a judicial tyranny where one branch of our government not
only overrules the other two, but actually begins to function as a de facto
legislature.
What is the remedy for this? I don't know because I interpret Romans 13
very strictly and would never resort to violence, much less, take up arms
against the government. But there are lots of other people who don't take
the Bible into serious consideration, and they don't have a problem using
violence to right a wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the now,
self-excommunicated Baptist, George Greer, doesn't eventually meet a
twenty-first century John Brown like Paul Hill. That will be a sad day for
the Pro Life Movement. But were I a betting man, I wouldn't bet on poor
Judge Greer living a long, peaceful life, unless he moves out of the United
States. In the long run, I bet he'd rather be fed through a feeding tube
than to have to be accompanied by body-guards for the rest of his life.
3. Terri Schiavo was being fed through a feeding tube; that is a far cry
from a respirator. Back in 1974, I stood beside a member of my
congregation, watching his wife die after the doctors' disconnected the
devices that forced oxygenated blood to course through her veins. She died
within ten minutes of being disconnected. When the doctors proposed this
action, I had some reservations but supported my congregant's decision,
nevertheless. Looking back, I have no doubt that he made the right
decision. When my wife's mother came down with Alzheimer's disease back in
the early nineties, I watched its slow but steady progress as it stole her
mind and then her body. Alzheimer's is not a happy journey to the Celestial
City.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much
by her husband, then by my wife. We moved her to Central Louisiana about
fourteen months before she died because my father-in-law simply could no
longer tend to her by himself. For many months, he would alternate his time
staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then
on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the
hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and
dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death
around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed.
She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms.
We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The
nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her
care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day
the gangrenous, golf-ball-sized piece of necrotic tissue simply fell off; to
our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
In keeping with her living will, we did not allow "heroic measures," but we
always made sure that she had food and water. It would have been barbaric
to have denied her this comfort. For the last months of her life, she was
regularly given a morphine based drug for pain. I have no difficulty with a
physician administering pain-numbing drugs, even if they shorten somebody's
life. (Proverbs 31:6, 7: "Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his
poverty, and remember his misery no more.") But it is murder to administer
those same drugs beyond the smallest level that it takes to numb the pain
for the direct purpose of ending a human life.
Terri Schiavo's situation is all very, very sad, but it is a situation that
takes place many times a day throughout America. It's simply that in most
cases, people's relatives haven't come to hate each other so viscerally and
to express that hatred so spitefully. Nor do we have the two extreme wings
in the culture war lined up outside, each playing to the media.
Would I want to live by means of a respirator? Not unless it was a
temporary measure performed with a view to my recovery.
Would I want to live with a feeding tube? That is much more complex. I
would want food and water -- that's for sure -- but if I couldn't receive
them other than by a feeding tube, I'm not sure. That depends on other
circumstances. I wouldn't want them if I had been in a coma for a long time
and had no reasonable hope of recovery.
Who should make that decision?
I don't fully trust the medical industry -- it used to be a profession, and
there are still a good number of physicians who are professionals -- but
because of funding issues involving insurance companies and civil
authorities, I don't trust this industry the way many people still do. Do
you expect all these bureaucrats to act completely ethically, detached from
financial considerations, whether or not they wear the initials, M.D., after
their names?
I trust my government even less. As Christians, we should pray for the
civil authorities over us; we should respect their offices and obey their
commands that do not force us to sin. But we should never view government
as our friend, much less trust it, even though it functions under God's
sovereign purpose.
I trust my wife, and beyond her, I trust my children and my family called
Grace Presbyterian Church. I trust that they would do for me what I would
do for them.
If my wife were in a long-term coma, with no realistic prognosis for
recovery, I would order the doctors to disconnect her respirator. But I
would do my best to see that she was comfortable and as free from pain as
possible. I would make sure that she had food and water, even if it
required constant attention and a lot of personal effort to give her these
vital things. But if she couldn't receive nourishment without a feeding
tube, and if she was completely unable to let her will be known, and if
there were no realistic hope that her situation would ever improve, I would
order her feeding tube removed. It's what I would want done to me.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have
a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for
that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life." (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:4.)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
