“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” Judges 21:25.
Which is better: to do what seems right to you, or to follow the leadership of a King who has given us 66 books of guidance?
If God had given us a single page, the Ten Commandments, for example, and nothing more, then perhaps we would have to make a lot of hard decisions, often doing “that which was right in our own eyes.” But God has given us 66 books, as many as two thousand pages in some English editions. There is no need for every man to do that which is right in his own eyes. We have the written word.
I try to avoid arguments online. It’s not worth it. It’s pointless, right? But I kicked the hornet’s nest today…
My friend Cam posted information about the growing use of MAiD, or “Medical Assistance in Dying.” In short, some thirteen U.S. states now allow medical patients facing the end of their lives to choose between hospice care and MAiD. Hospice is the more traditional practice: dying patients are made comfortable with pain relief while they and their families wait for the patient to “pass” naturally. Patients average two to three weeks in hospice care.
MAiD is different, providing that a legally competent patient whom doctors believe will die within six months is given a medication by his physician which the patient must then administer to himself when ready (some details vary by state). That medication (often including propofol or other powerful sedatives) will end the patient’s life through a painless process that can take a few minutes or several hours.
Because a close family friend chose to end her life via MAiD only last week, I was particularly interested in this online conversation. Everyone talking about it was raving about what a beautiful experience MAiD could be. (Yes, they literally called it “beautiful.”)
I brought up a dissenting view:
“A family member in Maine chose MAiD last week. After swallowing the oral meds, she lingered for hours. Her decision was difficult and controversial. Not only did the deceased insist on controlling the circumstances of her departure, but she also forbade family from telling anyone she took her own life. We were instructed to say she died of complications related to stomach cancer.
“Because hospice uses medicine to relieve pain, it seems the only benefit of MAiD is that it allows the dying to control the circumstances of his or her departure. That is, to have a tidy ending today rather than living with illness for a few more months.
“I’m not convinced a neatly scheduled exit outweighs thousands of years of Christian tradition vesting God with sovereignty over life and death.”
As you might imagine, my comments were not well-received. Cam and his friends were mostly polite (though they did call me judgmental). But here’s what was particularly intriguing: the two who responded to my comments began by making reference to their resumes:
The first wrote, “As a woman who is an ordained minister myself and has been a hospice chaplain for many years ….” Then Cam—whom I know well—thought it important to remind me that he is “ordained clergy in the Presbyterian tradition.”
The thing is, I do not enjoy conflict–particularly online conflict. It can seem pointless and even counterproductive. So I decided to limit myself to one comment and one reply comment. I was not going to spend the whole day hashing and re-hashing this. This is a great strategy for online arguments: two quick comments. And it’s okay to let the other person have the last word. Particularly when that person posted the original article. I like to give them that respect on their page.[1]
Here is part of my reply to the replies I received:
“I do not doubt your compassion. And I certainly do not doubt God’s compassion.
But truth is a greater consideration than compassion. If you can point me to a scriptural defense of this practice, I would be curious to read it.”
Guess what?
The two ministers did not cite one Bible verse.
They wrote lengthy replies about God’s compassion and the challenges of medical ethics and end-of-life decisions (topics I had already admitted can be baffling). But when faced with the Church’s thousands of years of history AGAINST something like MAiD, these two trained and licensed members of the clergy gave me only this:
“My experience and understanding of God go beyond a single scripture. It is the all-encompassing love of God that leads me to my understanding of His mercy, love, and grace … this is why my understanding of the Word … extends beyond a single scripture reference.”
Do you see the problem here? When confronted with a controversial new medical practice, a practice both members of the clergy claimed to have witnessed often in their work, neither could offer me any Biblical counsel.
I mean, sure, they talked about God’s love. And they reminded me that God is compassionate. Absolutely. I had said as much myself. But we also know this compassionate God allows His children to suffer many difficult things, and unpleasant deaths are the norm, not the exception. So God’s compassion for the hurting cannot alone be a basis for taking God out of the picture by taking one’s own life.
As I told the two clerics, my own father suffered with Alzheimer’s and then a broken hip. He was in pain and lacked the mental clarity to understand that pain or handle it with the wisdom and perspective that had always guided his life. In fact, that broken hip did lead to his demise some two months later. My father suffered. But his suffering was reduced significantly by the pain-relieving medications administered to him as a part of hospice care.
Scripture supports the use of medication for pain relief, see Proverbs 31:6-7. And if hospice care can remove pain, what justification is there for using medication to cause the death of someone who is no longer suffering? Christians have always believed God to be sovereign over life and death. His children have felt strongly about this since before the time of Christ. Before adopting the opposite view, I need to see a scripture to support it.
Am I to toss out the question of sovereignty without even opening my Bible?
Can’t one of these ordained, seminary-trained members of the cloth point me to a scripture to justify a practice the church has long considered murder?
I don’t mean to be harsh—and again, I do not judge. There is no subject more perplexing than medical ethics; I have always said that. These are hard questions, and I respect patients and families no matter what decision they reach. If I were asked to be present during the use of MAiD, I would be there. I could offer comfort without fear that my presence condones or “blesses” a choice about which I have doubts. I may even come to agree with MAiD at some point in the future. God could show me something—in the SCRIPTURE—and I would change my view.
What interests me about this controversy is not who controls life and death, or medical ethics, or even questions of God’s sovereignty. Instead, I am just blown away by the fact that two people who felt it necessary to point out that they were ordained clergy were UNABLE to point to anything in the Bible that could help them persuade me that this MAiD or “Doctor-Assisted Suicide” was a right decision rather than something the Catholic church (for one) historically considered a sin that would damn the soul to hell.
Not one Bible verse.
Here is one of the problems of our modern age summed up: we believe deeply in empathy and compassion. But our compassion is unmoored. It has been cut loose from the anchor of truth and is adrift on a rolling sea of feelings. Without scriptural truth to anchor our lives, we are lost. We are at sea. How can anyone make a good decision? Do what feels right? Do what feels compassionate?
I’m sorry. I believe that integrity and character are tied to TRUTH. And truth is tied to scripture.
If you cannot use scripture to defend your choices, then either your choices are wrong or your knowledge of scripture is poor.
For members of the clergy to endorse—without scripture—a practice that so radically breaks with church tradition is a case of the blind leading the blind. We should not make our most serious decisions without consulting scripture. That is not serving the Gospel. It is shooting from the hip. You are putting on your robes and your collar and doing whatever feels right, not what the scripture counsels.
“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” Judges 21:25.
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16.
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” Psalm 119:105.
“Plans fail for lack of guidance, but with many counselors they succeed” Proverbs 15:22.
Dear God, give us wisdom when we face the increasingly difficult questions of medical ethics and end-of-life decisions. Lead us to a SCRIPTURAL basis for the answers we need. Teach us to love Your word more every day.
AΩ.
[1] Another great strategy when you find yourself disagreeing online is to sum up your thoughts, say your piece, end with “have a good day” or whatever, and then make a “permanent” exit by choosing not to be notified of future comments. On Facebook, click on “Turn off notifications about this post.” Just let people say what they want. Let them have the last word. The entire conversation will be forgotten in a week anyway.
- Proverbs 31:6-7: “Give strong drink unto him that 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” (KJV). “Give strong drink [as medicine] to him who is ready to pass away, And wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty And no longer remember his trouble” (AMP). “Strong drink is given to the terminally ill, who are suffering at the brink of death” (Passion Translation). “Use wine and beer only as sedatives, to kill the pain and dull the ache Of the terminally ill, for whom life is a living death” (Message).