Tag: Culture

To Live Is Christ and To Die is Gain: The Morality of Suicide

~ Evan Lenow

The Pew Research Center released the results of a recent study on views of end of life medical treatment. Among the more interesting findings is how different faith groups view the morality of ending life. In an analysis of the findings, Christianity Today reports, “About a quarter of evangelicals believe that a person has a moral right to suicide if he or she is ready to die because living is now a burden, or if that person is an extremely heavy burden on his or her family.”

When the situation is escalated to an incurable disease, 36% of white evangelicals believe a person has a moral right to suicide. If the patient “is in a great deal of pain” with “no hope of improvement,” the percentage increases to 42%.

Should we be surprised by these increasing numbers? Is it concerning that growing percentages of evangelicals (and every other religious category) view suicide as a moral right?

When I was a seminary student, I took a class on the ethics of life and death. One of my classmates made a presentation asserting that he would rather take his life than live through a difficult disease. He based his conclusion on the words of Philippians 1:21,

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

My classmate rebuffed any attempts to be talked out of his view that his moral right—even his biblical right—was to take the supposed perspective of Paul and seek death in order to be united with Christ.

While the Pew Research Center did not equate the changing views of faith groups with the Pauline declaration of Philippians 1:21, I cannot help but think that is at least in the background. Is this what Paul meant? Did he really intend to encourage Christians to seek death over life in difficult circumstances?

Let’s take a moment and consider what was happening in Paul’s life.

In Phil 1:7, we see that Paul has been imprisoned. He is fighting for his own freedom (and possibly his life) in front of the Roman authorities. Even though Paul was a Roman citizen and may have spent some of his imprisonment in house arrest, the Roman authorities were still not known for making the lives of their prisoners as comfortable as possible. In fact, it is likely that Paul considered his own life to be at risk from the Roman government. His spirits are buoyed by the love and affection of the believers in Philippi (Phil 1:3–11), but life is still hard.

Taken out of context, Phil 1:21 seems to be Paul’s final desire for death in the face of his circumstances. But we need to take a closer look. He goes on to say, “But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose” (Phil 1:22). Verse 22 puts Paul’s struggle in context. He knows that if he continues living he will be fruitful spreading the gospel, but if his life ends he will be united with Christ. We then read the following:

But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.  Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again. (Phil 1:23–26)

Paul sets aside his own personal desire to be united with Christ and sets his sights on living for the benefit of those he loves. He considers it to be more necessary that his sufferings continue for the sake of the Philippians so that they will progress in their faith.

Now let’s revisit the topic at hand. Do we have a moral right to suicide? The text most often employed to justify this right (Phil 1:21) actually compels us to continue living for the sake of others. No matter how bad the circumstances are, our suffering can be beneficial for the faith of others.

Suicide is often considered an escape from the pain of this world. No one desires to endure an extended bout with a terminal illness. No one wants to be a burden on family. However, claiming a moral right to suicide does not take into account the biblical understanding of the value of life and how persevering in terrible circumstances can build the faith of others and advance the gospel.

_________________________

Pew Research Center, “Views on End-of-Life Medical Treatments,” November 21, 2013.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “More Evangelicals Believe Suicide Is a Moral Right,” Christianity Today, November 21, 2013.

New Study Available: Biblically Correct

~ Evan Lenow

I am excited to announce that my study, Biblically Correct: Engaging Culture with Truth, is now available at Amazon and CreateSpace. This is a 10-week study on ethics and cultural engagement designed for use in the local church. The study addresses some of the most important ethical issues of our day and helps us consider the biblically correct perspective on these issues. Some of the issues include: worldview, marriage, sexuality, life and death, and the public square.

While designed for large or small group use in the local church, this study may also be beneficial for individual use. You can click the links in this post or on the right toolbar to order the study. If your church is interested in ordering a large number of books, please feel free to contact me by clicking on my faculty profile link on the right.

If you want to see how one church used the study this fall as part of a large group teaching time, you can watch the videos from the women’s ministry at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN.

*Shameless self-promotion has now ended, and this blog will return to its normal content.

ObamaCare, Contraception, and the War on Women

~ Evan Lenow ~ 3 Comments

What is the war on women? The phrase has been used by various political groups to characterize attitudes related to the perspective on women’s roles in the home and workplace. In recent days, the idea of a war on women has been used to describe the debate over whether or not the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., ObamaCare) should provide all forms of FDA-approved contraceptives to women at no cost to them. The typical accusations of a war against women have been lobbed against conservatives who seek to limit the government’s role in providing contraceptives.

Now it seems that a new front of the war on women has been opened, but this time it comes from a very unlikely place–progressives attempting to justify the contraceptive mandate of ObamaCare.

A number of articles have appeared in recent days highlighting a series of ads produced by the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado. These ads seek to explain why young adults, particularly young women, should sign up for insurance on the new health exchanges.

Even though there are a few different versions, the theme of these advertisements directed at women is that you need free contraceptives in order to participate in promiscuous sexual activity without regret. Without these free contraceptives, you may not be able to “enjoy” the liberation of your sexuality.

In an interview with The Denver Post, Amy Runyon-Harms, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, attempted to justify the ads promoting promiscuous behavior. She stated, “People get upset when you portray women as independent. We think this ad is really about healthy relationships and that people are taking control of their lives with health care.”

The problem with these ads is twofold. First, they objectify women by speaking of them in exclusively sexual terms. In one of the ads, a cut-out of Ryan Gosling is portrayed as being “excited about getting to know” the real-life girl pictured in the ad. His excitement stems from the fact that she has easy access to birth control.

This perspective on women is demeaning and unbiblical. Yes, God created man and woman with a sexual nature (He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 1:28). However, we are all much more than our sexuality. We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) and have value as persons in that image, not simply because we have a sexual nature.

Second, these ads promote risky sexual behavior with a false sense of security. Simply limiting the possibility of pregnancy does not make sexual activity outside of marriage safe, much less commendable. The hook-up culture of college campuses leads to a host of problems including sexually transmitted infections, pornography, emotional attachment, and potential violence. Contraceptives do not address these issues. Giving a false sense of security through free birth control pills only exacerbates the problem.

This is why God’s design for sexuality is that it should only be expressed within the context of marriage. In Hebrews 13:4 we read, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Many people may look this verse and say that the Bible is stuck in the Dark Ages. However, the reality is that God’s design for sex exclusively within marriage is the safest and most fulfilling option.

Is there a war on women? There certainly seems to be, but it is not what you may have been led to believe. The war on women is being waged by groups like ProgressNow Colorado who view women as nothing but objects of sexual desire. Instead, we need to proclaim that women find their true value in the fact that they are made in the image of God.

*I apologize for posting the content of the ads in the pictures on this blog post, but I felt it was necessary to see that they are actually real. The rest of the ads can be found at http://www.doyougotinsurance.com.

_________________________

Kurtis Lee, “Pro-Obamacare ads targeting millennials stir controversy in Colorado,” The Denver Post, November 12, 2013.

Emily Miller, “MILLER: New Obamacare ads make young women look like sluts,” The Washington Times, November 12, 2013.

Good Reading: The Irrationality of Same-Sex Marriage

~ Evan Lenow

Public Discourse has a good article on the relationship between same-sex marriage and the irrational judicial decisions made by judges formulating those decisions. Matthew J. Franck opens with the following statement:

One of the most striking features of the campaign for same-sex marriage has been the prominence of its assault on reasoning itself. The logical relations of legal categories with one another, as those categories represent persons, their interactions, and their rights and duties, are at the heart of all legal decision-making and ideally inform legislative and administrative policymaking as well. But the impulse to redefine marriage so that it is no longer understood as the conjugal union of a man and a woman has been consistently heedless of logic and the rational relations of legal categories.

Included in his analysis is that proponents of same-sex marriage do not offer a cogent definition of marriage; that they believe traditional marriage is simply a religious institution; and that same-sex marriage should be legalized in order to avoid hurting people’s feelings.

Franck offers some insightful analysis, and the rest of the article is worth your time. You can find it here.

_________________________

Matthew J. Franck, “Same-Sex Marriage Makes Liberal Judges Irrational,” Public Discourse, October 15, 2013.

Can a Child Have More Than Two Parents? California Says “Yes”

~ Evan Lenow

Earlier this month, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a piece of legislation that allows children to have more than two legal parents. Since that time, there has been some legal wrangling over what the practical application of the law will be and whether similar laws will be passed in other states.

The law in California came as a response to a legal case where one partner in a lesbian relationship had been impregnated by a man. Sometime after the birth of the girl, the couple got into a domestic dispute, and one of them landed in jail while the other was in the hospital. The girl ended up in foster care. Since her biological father had terminated parental rights so that the non-biological mother in the couple could legally adopt the girl, the daughter was not placed in his care—despite the fact that he was still actively involved in her life. In order to rectify this situation and others like it, California has now passed a law that legally recognizes more than two parents for custodial purposes.

This is one of the unintended consequences of the legalization of same-sex marriage. Since revisionist marriage definitions no longer make a connection to biology, gender, and procreation, children have been placed in the awkward circumstance of not knowing who their parents are. Are their biological parents really their parents? What about the non-biological-parent same-sex partner of their mom or dad?

Those who supported the law claim that it protects the best interest of the child. However, it is difficult to say that such a worthy goal is the actual outcome of the law for at least a couple of reasons.

First, this law will most likely add confusion to the mind of the child when she attempts to identify her parents. In situations like the one that inspired the law, the child was given the impression that she had two mothers and one father. Even though she did not live with her father, he was actively a part of her life. Imagine the confusion in her mind over why her father did not live in her house. Did he not love her enough to live with her? Did her mother not love her father? This situation is ripe for confusion on the part of a child.

Second, what happens when one biological parent has different hopes or aspirations for the child than her other biological parent and non-biological-parent same-sex partner? Who is given preference when that occurs? In a traditional marital relationship, the father and mother (i.e., husband and wife) work together to iron out their own differences over the goals they have for their children. In this situation, the non-resident biological parent is most likely the one left with a diminished voice in childrearing. Is this really in the best interest of the child when research proves that children fare better when reared in the married home of their biological parents?

Even though our culture was assured by proponents of same-sex marriage that it would not change the fabric of marriage and family, such assurances were empty and false. In fact legal professionals fully expect similar laws to be passed in states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

With the legalization of same-sex marriage in fourteen states, the change not only to marriage but also to the institution of the family is already well underway. However, this should not discourage us from standing for God’s design for marriage and family. As it relates to this law in particular, we should stand for God’s design for the sake of the children.

_________________________

Patrick McGreevy and Melanie Mason, “Brown signs bill to allow children more than two legal parents,” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2013.

Jeremy Byellin, “More than two legal parents? A new California law makes it possible,” Legal Solutions Blog, October 15, 2013.