Tag: Ethics

This unsettling story can be found in Acts chapter five. The narrative is summarised in the first two verses:

“Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.”

Their deceit, which Peter called “lying to God,” led to their early death. Interestingly, Peter makes a big deal about this deception, especially considering his betrayal of Jesus. Peter received nothing but grace for his error, yet he quickly judged others. How sad it is when those who have received grace deny others the same blessing they have been given. I’m glad that Christians don’t behave like that anymore!

So, how should we interpret the troubling tale of Ananias and Sapphira? There are several ways to understand it.

A Parable?

The story could be viewed more as a parable than a factual historical event. For example, the Bible Background Commentary mentions some rabbis purportedly disintegrating foolish pupils with a harsh glance. We still talk about someone giving a withering look, but the “look” doesn’t literally shrink the person. We understand the expression metaphorically.

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible says about this story: “Theological and pastoral questions arise. Why is Peter so harsh in not offering the couple an opportunity to repent? Does God really punish sinners in such a drastic manner? The story is more folklore than historical and is meant to underscore the serious breach that occurs when members of the community lie to one another.”

So, what kind of truth is found in Acts 5? Is it factual, or is it symbolic—a parable designed to teach truth while not being a true story itself?

People sometimes get fixated on facts instead of truth. For instance, rather than trying to figure out how a massive fish swallowed Jonah, consider what truth is being conveyed in this story. What can we learn, and how can we apply this truth in our daily lives? What truth and wisdom can we gain from the story of Ananias and Sapphira?

An Ancient Teaching Method?

A well-known educational tool in the first century was to compare positive and negative examples. Acts chapter four concludes with a general statement regarding the church’s generosity, followed by a specific instance: Barnabas sold a field he owned and laid the money at the apostles’ feet.

Luke, the author of Acts, compares Barnabas’ generous act with the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who also sold a piece of property. Luke’s letter did not have chapter divisions.

Many individuals who converted to Christianity hailed from various nations and remained in Jerusalem following Pentecost. These people had no means of financial support—there were no social security benefits available. The church served as their lifeline, and no other churches existed outside of Jerusalem.

These freewill gifts were entirely at the giver’s discretion. The land was sold and placed “at the apostles’ feet,” indicating that the offering was not for the apostles but rather for them to distribute to those in need. Barnabas demonstrated the right way to do this, while Ananias and Sapphira displayed the wrong way.

The message in these stories is clear: when you give, do it like Barnabas, not like Ananias and Sapphira.

An Older Story?

The story of Ananias and Sapphira stands in contrast to the account of Achan in Joshua 7, where the sin of one man resulted in the death of many others. In the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira, however, the death of two individuals brought purity to a community instead of destruction. God places great importance on the collective holiness of His people.

Honesty is the Best Policy

The Acts 5 story illustrates that God takes sincerity in claims very seriously. Pastors should keep this in mind when asked about the size of the church they lead. Too many of us become Evang-elastic in our responses.

The entire scenario involving Ananias and Sapphira was completely unnecessary. They were probably a very wealthy couple—Sapphira is a rare name, typically associated with affluent women. The property belonged to them. No one had asked or pressured them to sell it; it was entirely their own choice.

They conspired to keep some of the money while pretending to give it all away, revealing their pride in the deception. They lied to and tested the Holy Spirit (God). Was this a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Was this sin unforgivable? Regardless, one truth that stands out in this story is that honesty is the best policy.

A Harsh Sentence

The Dead Sea Scrolls excluded such an offender from the communion table for a year. However, a much stricter sentence is imposed here. There’s no mention of God carrying out the killing. Peter pronounced the sentence, possibly exercising a gift of the Holy Spirit. Was he inexperienced in using these powers? Did he learn from this? To my knowledge, there is no record of anything like this happening again. And I’ve never experienced anyone dying during an offering at Bayside Church—not yet, at least!

Concluding Comments

The punishment doesn’t seem to match the crime. Much worse sins are documented in the New Testament Scriptures without resulting in death as punishment. Take, for example, the case of a young man who engages in incest with his stepmother, along with Peter’s blatant hypocrisy that Paul confronts directly. Yet, Peter doesn’t drop dead as a consequence.

If this is a literal historical event, my only thought is that the apostles aimed to protect the infant church. Such protection wasn’t necessary as the church grew stronger.

A literal understanding of this story concerns me, as it seems to contradict God’s nature of unfailing love and forgiveness. It also fails to reflect Jesus’ statement, “the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:56).

If Ananias and Sapphira were indeed real people, they would have been members of the church and Christians. They would have been regarded as “saved.” There’s no indication that they were “lost.” I hope they’re in heaven.

We regularly awaken to the news of another mass shooting in the USA. Several people have recently been shot for simply arriving at the wrong house. They were mistaken or lost and killed or seriously injured. Add to that the mass shootings in schools, churches, and shopping malls, and it appears that America is highly unsafe.

My main concern in this blog is the people who follow Jesus, claim the Christian faith, are staunch defenders of gun ownership and the Second Amendment, and use the Bible to endorse their point of view. How does this align with the teachings of Jesus?

Self-Disclosure

I want to be transparent about my emotions on this topic because I feel very passionately about it. It is also a cause of enormous frustration to me as the US appears unable or unwilling to act on this significant problem. While I am not anti-firearms per se, they should be strongly regulated. I acknowledge some people love hunting, but I’m not one of them. I struggle with the concept of killing animals and calling it a sport. I understand that sometimes culling is necessary, but there’s a big difference between culling and killing for fun.

I greatly appreciate our government’s decisive action to reduce the number of illegal firearms in Australia. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, our new Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced a gun amnesty in which 600,000 firearms were handed in. Gun deaths by homicide and suicide plummeted, and Australia has not seen the likes of Port Arthur since. The same cannot be said for the US.

Back in the USA

There were 647 mass shootings in the US last year. A mass shooting is where four or more people are shot or killed, not including the attacker. With this definition, shootings of under four people are not included.

In 2022, there were only 97 days when a mass shooting was not recorded. So far, in 2023, there have been 185 mass shootings. Last weekend saw eleven mass shootings, but we only heard about the worst one. There are so many that it’s not worth reporting on the smaller ones.

Why’s it Getting Worse?

The trend has risen sharply in recent years. In 2022, there were 44,290 gun-related deaths, a 31% increase on 2019. Nine of the ten deadliest mass shootings in the US occurred after 2007. There are several reasons for this:

Gun ownership is on the rise. And no wonder, there is so little regulation that even a 13-year-old can legally buy a gun. If you don’t believe me, watch this short clip from Bryant Gumbel’s Real Sports. US gun laws are lax, irregular, and ineffective. For example, US Federal law does not require that background checks be made on private sales of guns, including at gun shows or online. Regulations on the safe storage of firearms are also lax in some states.

A fractured society. America was already politically divided well before Covid-19. The Pandemic only made things worse.

Rampant Conspiracies. I know this firsthand as I’ve watched some dear friends descend the rabbit hole of ridiculous plots. They believe in a Deep State Cabal that controls the government. They love Trump because this Cabal does not govern him, so they want him back in power. They believe the Port Arthur massacre was a false flag operation, an excuse for the government to strip Australians of firearms so the government can control the masses. Senator Pauline Hansen peddled this rubbish just a few years ago. Many Americans (including Christians) buy into this and fear it is happening in the US.

Toxic masculinity. 98% of shooters are men.

Financial or personal hardship. Undoubtedly, the gap between the haves and have-nots is getting wider. And this resentment can fuel frustration and anger that can lead to violence. But people face these things in Australia and other countries without resorting to shooting others.

The Second Amendment

Christian Nationalism, a perversion of the Bible and the gospel, is sadly rising in the USA. I know several conservative American Christians who love their God and their guns. They view the US Constitution as sacred and defend their beliefs from Scripture.

The Second Amendment states, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The militia refers to the American people.

The Second Amendment needs to be amended. It was first enacted on 15 December 1791, long before semi-automatic weapons. Muskets were the order of the day. Muskets were inaccurate, had a 30-second reloading time, and couldn’t shoot as far as 100 metres.

Misquoting Scripture

Christian gun activists quote Luke 22:36 & 38 to defend their beliefs. Jesus told his disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied. There you go. Jesus told his followers to buy weapons to defend themselves, so we should own guns. But is that what Jesus is teaching here?

Jesus is speaking to Peter and John just before his arrest. When Judas betrayed Jesus, his followers saw what would happen and said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51).

Why did Jesus tell Peter and John to ensure they had weapons if they weren’t supposed to use them? Because those arresting Jesus came fully armed with swords and clubs (Luke 22:52-53), but Jesus didn’t want his disciples to behave that way. Impetuous Peter misses the moment and the message and gets it wrong again.

Jesus wanted to show that they weren’t leading an armed rebellion, so Luke 22:36 is not teaching American Christians that they should own guns. Jesus teaches the opposite by telling Peter, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” That could be a prophetic word for the United States, a nation living by and dying by the gun.

I invite you to pray for the US and the American church. I wonder what will need to happen before the nation and some sections of the church come to their senses and act in unity to stem the shedding of innocent blood. How many more people will need to die before a change is made?

On 29 November 2017, Victoria became the first Australian state to pass legislation allowing voluntary assisted dying. The law gives anyone suffering a terminal illness, with less than six months to live, the right to end their life. “From 19 June 2019, Victorians at the end of life who are suffering and who meet strict eligibility criteria will be able to request access to voluntary assisted dying. The law allows for an 18-month implementation period to give health services time to plan and prepare for voluntary assisted dying.” For more information, check out the Victorian State Government website.

I concede that this is a highly emotional and divisive topic and I acknowledge every person’s right to their opinion for their reasons.

Christie and I spoke a while ago with an MP who was part of the cross-party committee and ministerial advisory panel. This group visited countries and states that have already introduced similar legislation; they talked to numerous people who hold varying views for various reasons. The exhaustive report, which contains 66 recommendations, is considered to be among the most conservative legislation of its type in the world. [1] The committee said any request to die must come from a terminally ill, mentally competent patient over the age of 18 in the final weeks or months of their life, and must be approved by a primary doctor/ specialist and an independent secondary doctor.

The Bill (and hence this blog) has to do with voluntary assisted dying (VAD) rather than euthanasia or assisted suicide. VAD refers to people who are already dying and where the patient takes the medication prescribed. Euthanasia is usually where the doctor administers the medicine, whilst assisted suicide includes people who are not terminally ill, but who are being helped to commit suicide. It’s vital that these definitions are understood.

I take my calling as a pastor very seriously, and my pastoral gift causes me to see and engage with people and not just issues. I am not a blogger who is removed from people and their pain; I am a pastor who happens to write a weekly blog as part of my ministry. I often receive criticism from those who think I should be black and white about specific issues, but what individuals deal with in daily life concerns me more than statistics, disputes, questions and cherry-picked Bible verses. And so, when it comes to VAD, I believe it’s important to consider the following pastoral concerns that affect precious people and their loved ones in the final weeks or months of life with a terminal illness:

  • While palliative care in Australia is amongst the best in the world, it is not available to everyone. A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an oncologist and she said the resources of finance, people and equipment for palliative care are insufficient and not always available within the timeframe they’re needed. In other words, just because palliative care is requested doesn’t mean the patient will receive it when they need it. Obviously more resources need to be made available, and this is a significant recommendation of the VAD report.
  • Not every condition responds to palliative care, and so some terminally ill people opt for suicide to spare themselves and their families the pain (or non-pain symptoms) that will surround their death. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that three Australians over the age of 75 take their lives each week, usually because of terminal illness.[2]  Of course, there are also people younger than 75 who suicide because of a terminal condition.
  • Voluntary assisted dying can be a viewed by the terminally ill as a safety net in case it’s needed. In 2014 Christie and I had the privilege of interviewing Peter Short on The Exchange TV program.[3]  Peter was terminally ill with oesophageal cancer and used his final months to advocate for VAD. A couple of years ago, we attended the launch of the documentary Fade to Black that details Peter’s last months.[4]  Peter was given a dose of Nembutal in case his symptoms became too much to bear but, in the end, he found palliative care sufficient and he passed away peacefully during December 2014. I’ve heard many people talk about VAD as a safety net that gives them peace just knowing they have a way to end intolerable suffering should it occur. Very few end up taking it. As Andrew Denton says, “it’s not about someone choosing to end their life because they want to end their life, it’s about someone who is already dying choosing to end their suffering.”
  • It’s crucial that we become better at having deep and meaningful conversations about death and dying, something I find many people are uncomfortable with, but appreciate when they happen. Some months ago, I interviewed Graham Crossan[5], a member of Bayside Church, who has Motor Neurone Disease. We chatted about lots of things including living with a terminal illness, death and dying. Many people in our church told me how grateful they were for the honest discussion.

Whatever your opinion is of voluntary assisted dying, it’s important to think carefully about it as it affects real people at what for many will be the most challenging time for them, their friends and family.

 

[1]https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/researchandreports/ministerial-advisory-panel-on-voluntary-assisted-dying-final-report

[2]www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/…/clac…/suicide/…/sub170_pdf.ashx

[3] http://www.theexchangetv.com.au/right-die/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pv0zqWowto

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxasDElBbMs

 

 

When Christie and I were filming an episode of Bayside TV, one of the most incongruous things we experienced was our pacifist guest getting angry!  We asked questions that challenged his view and, well, things got a little heated to say the least.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those warmongering fundamentalist Christians who appears to delight in bombs going off in faraway places. Such people are a living contradiction, saying they are “pro-life” and yet delighting in their guns, weapons and death penalties. But neither am I an antiwar peace lover.

A Bible verse that is invariably quoted to support pacifism is Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”  This is the only time the word peacemaker appears in the Bible, and it should be noted the word is peace maker, not peace lover.

In a modern context, we think of this Beatitude as meaning an end to war or violence. Peace lovers often want peace at any cost – or no cost at all. Peace lovers fall into two categories – the pacifists and the peaceful.  The peaceful are people who want peace at any price even if it is to their detriment or the ultimate disadvantage of others. The pacifist, on the other hand, is a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable in any circumstance.

Pacifists emphasize the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount – turn the other cheek and love your enemies.  They use the example of Jesus in his betrayal, arrest, torture, and crucifixion when he didn’t resist, and that he even prayed for those who nailed him to the cross.  The pacifist’s conclusion is that Jesus has called us to live a life of non-resistance and non-violence, but they ignore verses like Luke 22:36, “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”  The truth is, peace is not always an option. Consider Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”  Sometimes, it doesn’t depend on you!

In my opinion, the Bible does not teach pacifism; in fact, it gives three times when it’s right to fight:

To Preserve Freedom

Many times, in the Hebrew Scriptures, God told the Israelites to go and liberate a particular group of people.  In Numbers 32, God expresses anger at two tribes in Israel because they wouldn’t go to war.  Moses says to these two tribes, “What are you going to do?  Just sit here while the rest of your brothers go to war?  Aren’t you going to participate?” (Num 32:6).  If you don’t know what’s worth dying for, you won’t know what’s worth living for!

To Defend Innocent People

The Wisdom literature states, “When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”[i] Christians are not just interested in peace – we want peace with justice.  Peace at any price is not peace at all.  Peace at any price is appeasement.  God is not only a God of peace, He is also a God of justice.

Edmund Burke, the Irish political Philosopher famously said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  British Philosopher, John Stuart Mills wrote, “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free.”

To Stop The Spread of Evil

Paul the apostle believed that God had empowered governments to enforce the law and punish offenders.[ii] While the context is primarily speaking about civil matters, there is little doubt that governments also have the authority to act in order to stop the spread of evil regimes and the plans of tyrannical leaders.  What if the world had not responded strongly against Hitler’s plans for world domination or, as in more recent times, to seek to stamp out so-called Islamic State?

Someone may ask: “Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, `You shall not kill?”  No, it doesn’t.  It says, “You shall not murder.”  The word is used 47 times in the Bible, and it always means murder.  Is there a difference between killing and murder?  Absolutely!  C.S. Lewis said, “All killing is no more murder than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”  There is a difference.  When is it right?  When its goal is to bring about justice, preserve freedom, and reduce evil in the world.

God’s Ultimate Desire Is For Universal Peace

War is not God’s ideal, but we live in a far from ideal world.  His eternal kingdom will only be inhabited by righteous people, and so then there will be no need for war: “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.  They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” [iii]  This verse is written on a wall across the street from the United Nations building in New York City, but they left out a significant part – “He … will settle the disputes for many peoples.”  He – Jesus, not the United Nations.  We’ll never have ultimate peace until the Prince of Peace establishes His reign on Earth.  In the meantime, Christians should pray, work, and fight for peace.

[i] Proverbs 21:15

[ii] Romans 13:4

[iii] Isaiah 2:4

Assisted dying legislation in Victoria will be debated next week when Parliament returns.  No doubt there will be some robust discussion over the next few weeks until a conscience vote by the end of the year is reached.

I will write a blog on the Assisted Dying Bill next week, but the focus of this blog is The Right to Try rather than the right to die.  In the USA some states have laws that allow terminally ill patients to TRY experimental treatments (medication, procedures and other possible cures) that are unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  These treatments have passed basic safety testing but are not freely available.

I believe in the right to try for two reasons.  Firstly, if I were dying from a terminal illness, I would want to be given every possible opportunity to beat it – not because I’m scared to die but because I have so much for which to live.  As a husband and father, I want to be around for my family for a long time to come.  One of my long-term prayers and goals has been to grow old with Christie.  So far so good!  I also have a wonderful relationship with our three daughters.  I love being “there” for them and want to be there for many more years.  I want to walk them down the aisle one day, should they choose to marry.  I want to meet my sons-in-law and my grandkids.  I want to spoil them rotten (the grandkids that is) and be a hip old pop.  I still have so many dad jokes up my sleeve too.

I also believe that God has so much more for me to accomplish.  I love leading our amazing community that is Bayside Church and I’d like to stay around longer to see what God has in store for us.  I have books to write, sermons to teach, people to love, disciples to make, places to visit and battles to win.  Longevity runs in my family (my gran was 101 and my great gran 103), and I hope I’ve picked up that gene or whatever it is.  Should I however succumb to a terminal illness I’d want to have the right to try anything that would help me beat it and stick around longer.

Lest you should think my motivation was only selfish, my second reason for believing in the right to try is to engage in experiments that could benefit others.  Yes, I would put my hand up and volunteer to be a human guinea pig.  Even if the treatment were unsuccessful for me, I’d hope that those behind the trial would gain useful information that would help other people and save their lives.

There are some who are against the right to try legislation because they say it opens people to elevated risk.  What could be riskier than having a terminal illness?  Of course, any right to try legislation would need to provide drug companies some legal protection if a treatment resulted in harm, but let’s not use that as an excuse to deprive people of a possible cure and an extension to their quality of life.

For a human face to this issue read Deborah Sims’ recent article in the Herald Sun.

 

 

 

Last week, I listened to an interesting discussion on euthanasia on a Melbourne radio station. The host interviewed a Christian minister who, of course, was anti-euthanasia. And so I decided to make this subject a discussion point on social media. Here’s what I wrote:

“Once again the Church speaks out against. While I acknowledge that this is a complex and emotive issue, I’m wondering when the church will learn to engage on ethical issues in a way that expresses God’s love and care for people. Right now in Victoria one person a week, on average, takes their life rather than face an agonising death. The Church’s “against” stand on this and other ethical issues does not engage people with where they find themselves and what they face. Christians need to express God’s compassion for people rather than make black and white statements from a distance. Have you sat with someone as they’ve died in agony? Have you walked with a person with a terminal illness? Have you comforted family and friends who are devastated from helplessly watching their loved one suffer? We need to leave our ivory towers and do life with people who God loves and for whom Jesus gave His life. That sort of Christianity attracts people. The other sort repels.”

As always I invited discussion and what followed was a generally respectful dialogue. But one person wrote, “I am suprised [sic] to hear this from u Rob, I have had many of my family and friends that I had to sit by and watch [sic] them suffer, and thankful for any comfort they could get, but i also know the God numbered our days and its not up to us to end them when we feel like it!” I responded, “It’s a discussion. Nothing to be surprised about. These things need to be talked about in a respectful and compassionate way.”

Christian people should not shy away from the tough debates and neither should we automatically be “against” everything – although that sadly seems to be the expectation from many in the church these days. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t hold strong views but we need to learn to engage with others and listen to why their opinion differs from ours. Along the way maybe we’ll learn something rather than being self-righteously opinionated.

The euthanasia debate has surfaced again recently because of a 350 page report handed down to the Victorian State Parliament. The report recommends that euthanasia only be made legal for terminally ill patients over the age of 18, enduring pain and suffering in the last weeks or months of their natural life.  A number of other safeguards would also be put in place if legislation were eventually passed. This process is likely to take about two years and there’s no guarantee that current laws will be changed.

Last year Christie and I filmed an episode of our TV program The Exchange on the euthanasia debate called The Right to Die.  Originally we were to have two guests both of whom had terminal illnesses: Peter Short and Nicholas Tonti-Filippini. Unfortunately Nicholas had to withdraw from the program at the last minute, as he was too ill. He passed away a few days later. In his place Margaret Tighe, the president of the Right to Life Australia, agreed to take part in the discussion.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini had battled a chronic autoimmune disease from the age of 20. He lived until the age of 56. Professor Tonti-Filippini was staunch in his opposition to voluntary euthanasia. He said, “Euthanasia would be a disaster for people like me. I’m dependent on dialysis … I’m well advanced with a terminal condition. If euthanasia was allowed it would put pressure on people in my situation to take that option. So anybody who was terminally ill – anybody who was suffering – they would be under a kind of pressure because the doctors would have to tell them that this was an option, so it would undermine the whole relationship between them and their doctor.  At the moment, the doctors and nurses I see encourage me to keep going with the dialysis.  But if they happen to turn around and say that at this stage of your life you could opt for euthanasia, it would completely undermine the relationship.” (The Age)

Peter Short was an amazing man and we enjoyed good conversation both on and off set. Peter had successfully battled oesophageal cancer in his early 50s but, on 28 January 2014, his 57th birthday, he was told it had returned – terminally. Peter campaigned for euthanasia but in the end he opted for palliative care. He died on 29 December, 2014.

https://petershort.com.au

There are many “fors” and “againsts” in the euthanasia debate and I encourage you to read widely on the subject if you’re interested in knowing more. I guess a great question for all of us to ask is whether ethics are issues or people? If ethics are just issues then we are free to make black and white statements such as, “I’m against euthanasia.” But if ethics go way beyond issues and actually affect people – which they do – then we need to engage with the people who are affected, get to know them and listen to their stories. When we do this we will find that there are many shades of grey and, more importantly, our hearts will be filled with empathy, compassion and love for those who are suffering – and that sounds very much like Jesus to me.

I must confess to a certain amount of trepidation in writing this blog as it’s on one of “those” topics – you know, the ones that tend to generate a high level of emotional response no matter what “side” you come down on. I’m referring to abortion. The last time I wrote on this subject was October last year in which I asked the question, “Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?”. You would have thought I’d committed the unpardonable sin in writing this blog because I asked what I believe to be four very fair questions in making sure that those who say they are pro-life genuinely are:

  1. Are they pro-life or pro-birth?
  2. Are they pro the life of women too?
  3. Are they pro-life in other areas of life?
  4. Are they concerned about the damage they do to the Christian faith?

But in this blog on abortion I want to highlight a piece of legislation that was introduced into the Victorian State Parliament by The Democratic Labour Party’s Dr. Rachel Carling-Jenkins in October 2015.

The Infant Viability Bill is the first formal attempt at pro-life legislation in Victoria in decades, and the first legislative attempt to remedy the abortion law reforms of 2008. Under this Bill:

  • Abortions would no longer be allowed from the 24th week of pregnancy.
  • Infant viability will be promoted and supported (all infants born alive from the 24th week of pregnancy onwards, including as the result of a medical emergency, must be cared for with the intent to save the infant’s life if at all possible)
  • Mothers who are at least 24 weeks pregnant, who present in distress to their doctor must be offered practical support, for example a referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care (such as counselling, social and other support as needed)
  • Mothers will not be criminalised or face any penalties.

The Infant Viability Bill 2015 is set for debate and vote in the Victorian Legislative Council today (May 25, 2016) and so by the time you read this you will most likely know the outcome. I believe this is a very fair and measured bill that seeks to find some common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially as Victoria has by far the most liberal abortion laws in Australia. At the time of writing numbers appear to be close in the Upper House.

Right now there is a huge disparity in abortion laws in various Australian states. For example, in Queensland and New South Wales abortion is a crime for women and doctors. It’s only legal when a doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger.  In NSW social, economic and medical factors may also be taken into account. In the ACT abortion is legal and must be provided by a medical doctor. The other States fall somewhere between these two extremes. I believe Australia needs to have some consistency in abortion law that protects women and also the unborn child. The safety and accountability of two doctors agreeing that a woman’s physical and/or mental health is endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality, or in the case of an emergency. There should be some special restrictions particularly for under 16 year olds (as is the case in WA) and should be very restricted after 24 weeks.

But with the Infant Viability Bill 2015 in mind it’s vital to get some insight into why a woman would seek a late-term abortion. Doctors Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport of the University of California released the results of some very interesting research on this in 2013.

They found that women aged 20–24 were more likely to have a later abortion than older women. They also found that later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs, which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone; they were depressed or using illicit substances; they were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence; they had trouble deciding and then had access problems; or they were young and had never carried a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.

It’s important to understand that a total ban on late-term abortions will disproportionately affect young women as well as women who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. That’s why point three in the legislation is so important – that doctors must offer practical support such as referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care. There are excellent organisations that do wonderful work of supporting women who find themselves, for whatever reason, with an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy Counselling Australia is a good place to start as their experienced counsellors connect callers with resources and appropriate services where further assistance is required. Emily’s Voice also offers helpful information and a referral list of organisations in all Australian states. If you live in another country try a Google search to find the help you need.

Pro-lifers have been in the news quite a lot recently, firstly with the Melbourne Fertility Clinic and its failed bid to have anti-choice protesters stopped from harassing patients and staff.  Then last weekend Troy Newman, head of US pro-life organisation Operation Rescue, was barred from entering Australia after a Member of Parliament raised concerns that his extremism “would cause significant harm to our community.”  Mr. Newman was due to begin a national speaking tour for Right to Life Australia in Melbourne on Friday night, but had his visa revoked by the Immigration Department and has since been deported.

While I am not for abortion in any and every situation, I believe it is an issue that needs a compassionate, well thought through Christian response.  I find myself struggling with some of the message and method of pro-life groups.  Here are four questions that I’m asking myself about this:

1. Are they pro-life or pro-birth?

In other words, is a pro-life person anti-abortion and FOR the birth of every baby?  If so, are they doing anything to support the mother’s choice to keep the baby if she decides not to go ahead with an abortion?  If not, they are pro-birth and not pro-life.

While affirming the Roman Catholic Church’s pro-life stance, Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation of 2013 recognised the importance of not simply being pro-birth, “On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?”  It’s a great question.

People that want babies to be born but don’t lift a finger to help them or their parents are just like the religious people Jesus condemned, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Luke 11:46).  If we’re really pro-life we need to offer far more than rhetoric, demonstrations, marches or counseling.  We need to role up our sleeves with practical help and finance and lift more than a finger to help out.

In their defense, The Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (the group that protests outside the Melbourne Fertility Clinic) do offer help to women who decide not to abort.  But a quick Google search shows numerous reports of harassment from the protesters.  One woman who was supporting a friend says, “I walked with them past protestors outside a termination clinic.  It was threatening and intimidating.  Abortion is a difficult decision without the pressure of strangers, some whose intentions are malevolent.”  Another woman was told not to get an abortion to which she replied, “I’ve got cancer!”  That didn’t seem to subdue the protesting group though.

2. Are they pro the life of women too?

While I believe we should certainly be concerned for unborn babies, we should equally be compassionately concerned for women who, for whatever reason, find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion law reform campaigner Professor Lachlan de Crespigny puts it this way, ‘‘these are incredibly vulnerable women. They might be victims of incest or domestic violence; they may have gone through a traumatic marital breakup or the death of their partner; they could be drug-addicted or people who just presented late, not knowing they were pregnant; or young girls hiding their pregnancy.”

According to Emily’s Voice, 97% of abortions are performed to protect the psychosocial (mental, emotional and social) health of the mother.

International research shows women will still seek abortion, even if it is illegal.  Surely we don’t want to return to the days of backyard abortions?  Do pro-lifers really want that?  If not, what is their solution?

3. Are they pro-life in other areas of life?

One of the contradictions I’ve noticed with some pro-lifers is that they advocate for saving babies while also supporting capital punishment and the right to bear arms.  A statement regarding Troy Newman declared he “has never advocated violence against abortion providers or facilities and has instead adamantly encouraged pro-life activists to work through the legal, legislative, and justice systems to bring abortionists who are breaking the law and harming women to justice.”  Mr. Newman said he had been misquoted and yet in his book, “Their Blood Cries Out,” he states, “In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people … The innocent blood of the New Covenant in Christ has the power to atone for all the innocent bloodshed from the beginning of time to the end, and to purify the whole earth — the land. Rejecting that innocent blood is to reject the only standard that is effective against innocent bloodshed, excluding the lawful execution of the murderers, which is commanded by God in Scripture.”

While the Hebrew Scriptures do command the execution of murderers, they also command the execution of children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9); a woman who displeases her husband because she can’t prove she was a virgin when they married (Deuteronomy 22:13-20); and a person who works on the Sabbath Day (Exodus 31:14).  It’s interesting to note that God gave mercy to the first murderer, Cain, and Jesus did the same for the woman caught in adultery.  For more on this read my blog, Why the death penalty is wrong.

4. Are they concerned about the damage they do to the Christian faith?

Pro-life protesters that continuously and openly harass and intimidate patients and staff, including blocking footpaths, following them, shouting at them, taking photos and videos, and even striking them, hardly give Christians a good name.  David Kinnaman in his book Unchristian put it this way, “Many outsiders … believe Christians have a right (even an obligation) to pursue political involvement, but they disagree with our methods and our attitudes … they claim we act and say things in an unchristian manner; they wonder whether Jesus would use political power as we do; and they are concerned that we overpower the voices of other groups.”

For this reason the Church is often seen as conservative and negative.  We become known for all that we’re against rather for what we stand for.  The church is often perceived as being “anti from a distance” without compassionately listening to people’s stories or engaging with them.  We also become known for focusing on one or two issues (gay marriage and abortion) while ignoring other issues completely, such as the plight of the poor, the homeless and the asylum seeker, care of the environment, adoption and foster care for children in need, the predicament of the persecuted church (and other religions) and fighting for victims of human trafficking and domestic violence.

Christians need to learn to engage in the right way.  We are called to share the good news of forgiveness, mercy and grace through Jesus: “Keep in mind that politics only gets you so far.  You change people’s lives most deeply by transforming their hearts, by helping them embrace a passionate, thoughtful, personal connection to Jesus.” (David Kinnaman)

Our actions should be merciful, respectful, gentle and careful especially towards those whose opinion is different to ours.  As the apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”  (Colossians 3:12).  Jesus put it this way: “In everything treat others the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12).  That would be a great start for pro-lifers!

“To you, the mothers who were betrayed by a system that gave you no choice and subjected you to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, we apologise.  We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent.  You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal." 

The apology also acknowledged "the profound effects" on fathers and the sons and daughters who grew up not knowing how much they were wanted and loved.

In the apology, Julia Gillard said, "no collection of words alone can undo all this damage.  But by saying sorry we can correct the historical record.  We can declare that these mothers did nothing wrong.”

Some of the submissions to the report into the practice of forced adoptions are heartbreaking:

My mother became hysterical, when she realised I was pregnant, she was bereft about the neighbours, the relatives, and the church members, finding out her daughter was pregnant out-of wedlock … I had to hide in the house, she had contempt for me … It was decided that I go to a home for unmarried mothers, “for a few weeks” so I would not been seen by others who would make judgement (Ms Marilyn Murphy, Submission 150, p. 2).

In 1965 I was sent to “Carramar” Church of England Home for Unwed Mothers … I did not go there on my own freewill.  I was woken that morning apparently, I must have been drugged by my mother with a sleeping pill or similar, as I did not come around till I was shaken awake by a Preacher … As we were parked in the driveway facing a two-storey older style building I asked him, “Where are we?” and he said, “This is a home for girls who are pregnant like you to stay till they have their babies”. I was terrified as he led me to the door to be met by a stern looking woman who led me inside (Mrs. Beverley Redlich, Submission 112, p. 1).

If we went into the shops for personal items we were only allowed to go in twos, so as not to upset the home owners in the area who had complained about us ‘walking the streets in our state’, we were a large blot on their pleasant society and the church did not want any trouble. Shopkeepers commented that we were from the local ‘baby factory’ (Ms. Angela Brown, Submission 402, p. 1).

The following is an excerpt from an adopted child.

I remember a time after returning to Australia at age 14. I was being belted so hard and so many times, I remember the belt wrapping around my neck once. During my adoption I still spent most of the time in boarding schools and church hostels (Mr. Wayne Lewis, Submission 408, p. 3).

Christine Cole, the head of the Apology Alliance who lost a child through forced adoption, told ABC television the words were long overdue: “I had my baby taken from me in 1969, and I think the use of the term forced adoption polarises the actual phenomena of what was going on.  What was going on was kidnapping children, kidnapping newborn babies from their mothers at the birth, using pillows and sheets to cover their face, drugging them as I was drugged, with drugs like sodium pentothal, chloral hydrate and other mind-altering barbiturates.  It was cruel, it was punitive and then often the mother was transported like I was away from the hospital so you had no access to your baby.”

What can we learn from this blot on Australia’s history?  Firstly, to make sure the Prime Minister’s promise is kept: “We can promise that no generation of Australian will suffer the same pain and trauma that you did.”  And yet the direction Australia is moving in with surrogacy laws will break the promise – future generations will grow up not knowing who their biological father or mother is.

Secondly, the Australia of the 1950s to 1970s is described as “a conservative and predominantly Christian nation and religious groups largely drove the adoptions.” This is something that Christians and churches need to understand because it was often church groups and church-run hospitals, hostels and care facilities that were directly involved in the injustices.  Recognising this the Catholic Church apologized in July 2011.  The Uniting Church has also accepted responsibility for this practice.  Anglicare says it apologised in the 2000 “Releasing the past” report for abuse at the Carramar maternity home.

It seems to me (as a conservative Christian) that conservative Christianity has much to apologize for.  In fact one pastor in the USA taught a series called “Confessions of a sinful church”.  They included:

Apology #1 – We’re sorry for our self-righteousness and hypocrisy

Apology #2 – We’re sorry for our endorsement of slavery

Apology #3 – We’re sorry for our mistreatment of homosexuals

Apology #4 – We’re sorry for the Medieval Crusades

Apology #5 – We’re sorry for saying the earth is flat

We could add to these apologies: we’re sorry for our oppression of women; for our refusal to recognise marriage between different races; for treating divorced people as second-class Christians; for saying that we’re all sinners saved by grace and yet showing contempt for those who are still in sin.

Christians have done a lot of good though the centuries and added great value to the world in which we live, but we’ve also got it wrong on more than one occasion.  This has been highlighted by last week’s apology by our Prime Minister.  We are sorry for the things we’ve got wrong.  I’m just hoping – and praying – that we don’t have too much more to apologise for in the future.

Some Christians may fail to donate organs because of the idea that a total body will be necessary at the resurrection.  The view is that, at the resurrection the risk exists of someone’s body missing vital organs or, worse still, organs flying out of the recipients and finding their home once again in the donor!  This concern can be quickly squashed by a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 which teaches that there is a tremendous difference between the physical body at death, which may be buried, cremated and return to dust (Genesis 3:19), and the spiritual body of the resurrection.

Others may be concerned that organ donation and transplantation is interfering with the natural order.  Some people feel that organ transplantation is contrary to natural law, supporting the concept on the basis of the inevitable rejection by one’s body of a newly transplanted organ or tissue.  Developing technology, however, has decreased the risks of rejection.  In the early 17th century the practice of blood transfusions resulted in many deaths because incompatible blood was given.  Then in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types and thus eliminated the extreme risks involved in transfusions.  Technological advances continue to eliminate the rejection of organs through closely screening donors and recipients, and then developing medications that will combat specific rejection of the transplanted organs.

It is my belief that the Bible supports medical, technological and scientific breakthroughs.  In Genesis 1:28 God commands humanity to “kabash”, or to take charge of the earth.  The Bible also gives many accounts of intervention to extend life or improve its quality.  One example is Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).  This event extended Lazarus’s life and gave him and his family new opportunities.  The Gospel accounts record 23 times that Jesus healed or raised someone from the dead (see John 4:46-53; Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 18:35-43 and John 5:1-9).  Old Testament passages also offer support for prolongation of life.  Elijah prayed to God and the life of the dead child for whom he prayed was restored (1 Kings 17:19-22).  Elisha performed a similar act, as life miraculously returned to a dead child (2 Kings 4:32-35).

The other reason why I believe the Bible sanctions organ donation is the repeated command to “Love your neighbour as yourself.”  One way to express this love is through modern technology that makes organ donation and transplantation possible.  The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) demonstrated the standard that everyone is a neighbour and that people should be willing to love in a way that meets the needs of their neighbour.  This includes giving first aid and the best health care possible. The Good Samaritan bandaged wounds, poured on oil and transported the injured man for help. Anointing with oil was the best medical care available in Jesus’ day and this testifies to the importance of medical care along with prayer.  Today prolonging life through the best medical technology available and with the power of prayer should be the focus of every person in a similar situation.

Organ donation gives another chance at life to those people who would otherwise die.  Jesus taught the Golden Rule, “in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12).  If I – or my wife or children – was dying and an organ transplant could save a life then I would be so grateful if a donor was available.  If I would want others to do that for me why wouldn’t I reciprocate?  Organ donation is one of the few acts for which people will remember you even after you are dead.  Any person can give a new life to at least five individuals.  Last year I registered as an organ donor.  Will you join me?

http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/services/aodr/index.jsp

http://www.donatelife.gov.au/Discover.html

The problem is that this moral message gets in the way of the church’s real message – the gospel, which is good news.  Some Christians are so busy trying to clean up others’ lives by Christianising them that they miss their real mission – that of sharing the true gospel.  The message of the moral police actually drives a wedge between Christians and the world that God loves.
Jesus didn’t behave this way so why do some of His people?  It’s like trying to clean a fish before you’ve caught it.  Jesus hung around with all sorts of people who had been rejected by the religious crowd of his day (see Mark 2:13-17).  The religious right, who did not understand Jesus’ love and acceptance, scorned Him – and they haven’t changed!
Now I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t have an opinion about moral issues, or have the right to express that opinion, or work for what is right in society.  We greatly respect people like William Wilberforce who worked tirelessly to abolish slavery in the British Empire – even though he was forsaken by much of society, including the church.  Today we respect Christians like Tim Costello who works on behalf of the poor and speaks out on issues like the dangers of gambling addiction.
But these men are a far cry from Christians who see themselves as the moral police called to enforce their view of the Bible’s morality on all of society.  These people build walls rather than bridges and actually keep people away from a relationship with a God who can change their life.
Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn the world – why should we?  Jesus came to reconcile people to God.  The moral police don’t reconcile, they repel.
The Christian message should be attractive not repellent. The apostle Paul wrote: “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sings against them.  And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”  There it is, the church’s message for the world – reconciliation.
Of course the moral police are not new.  They’ve been around for centuries – even in Jesus’ day.  He told them once, “you shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces.  You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matthew 23:13).
Christians are not called to live as conspirators banded together against the world that is for the time their home.  Rather, Jesus calls his people to live as salt and light “that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” – not be turned away from God by the message of the moral police!

The Victorian State Government is considering a “presumed consent” system for organ donation to replace the current system.  At present, people who want to donate their organs at death need to register their intentions.  In the new system, it would be presumed that everyone consents to donate their organs unless they specify otherwise.  Western Australia is currently introducing presumed consent.  This has been standard practice in Spain, France, Belgium and Sweden for some time.

I think this is an excellent idea because right now, only one in 10 Victorian adults are registered organ donors – and many of those never have their final wishes fulfilled because grieving families often block the wishes of the deceased.  Currently, about 1,700 Australians are waiting for organ donations.  Last year only 309 donors gave organs that saved 931 recipients.  So, what is a Christian view of organ donation?

Many Christians may fail to donate organs because of the idea that a total body will be necessary at the resurrection.  Carroll Simcox in “The Case of the Missing Liver” addresses this concern (to view this article, click on the link at the end of this blog).  The view is that, at the resurrection the risk exists of someone’s body missing vital organs or, worse still, organs flying out of the recipients and finding their home once again in the donor!  This concern can be quickly squashed by a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 which teaches that there is a tremendous difference between the physical body at death, which may be buried, cremated and return to dust (Genesis 3:19), and the spiritual body of the resurrection.

Others may be concerned that organ donation and transplantation is interfering with the natural order.  Some people feel that organ transplantation is contrary to natural law, supporting the concept on the basis of the inevitable rejection by one’s body of a newly transplanted organ or tissue. Developing technology, however, has decreased the risks of rejection. In the early 17th century the practice of blood transfusions resulted in many deaths because incompatible blood was given. Then in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types and thus eliminated the extreme risks involved in transfusions. Technological advances continue to eliminate the rejection of organs through closely screening donors and recipients, and then developing medications that will combat specific rejection of the transplanted organs.

It is my belief that the Bible supports medical, technological and scientific breakthroughs.  In Genesis 1:28 God commands humanity to kabash, or take charge of earth.  The Bible also gives many accounts of intervention to extend life or improve its quality.  One example is Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44). This event extended Lazarus’s life and gave him and his family new opportunities. The Gospel accounts record 23  times that Jesus healed or raised someone from the dead (see John 4:46-53; Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 18:35-43 and John 5:1-9). Old Testament passages also offer support for prolongation of life. Elijah prayed to God, and the life of the dead child for whom he prayed was restored (1 Kings 17:19-22). Elisha performed a similar act, as life miraculously returned to a dead child (2 Kings 4:32-35).

The other reason why I believe the Bible sanctions organ donation is the repeated command to “Love your neighbour as yourself.” One way to express this love is through modern technology that makes organ donation and transplantation possible. The parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) demonstrated the standard that everyone is a neighbour and that people should be willing to love in a way that meets the needs of their neighbour. This includes giving first aid and the best health care possible. The good Samaritan bandaged wounds, poured on oil and transported the injured man for help. Archibald Robertson says that anointing with oil was the best medical care available in Jesus’ day and that this formula testifies to the importance of medical care along with prayer. Today prolonging life through the best medical technology available and with the power of prayer should be the focus of every person in a similar situation.

Organ donation gives another chance at life to those people who would otherwise die.  Jesus taught the Golden Rule, “in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12).  If I – or my wife or children – was dying and an organ transplant could save a life then I would be so grateful if a donor was available.  If I would want others to do that for me why wouldn’t I reciprocate? Organ donation is one of the few acts for which people will remember you even after you are dead.  Any person can give a new life to at least five individuals.  I’m registering as an organ donor as one of my goals for 2011.  Will you join me?

http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/services/aodr/index.jsp

http://www.donatelife.gov.au/Discover.html

http://www.religiononline.org/showarticle.asp?title=1000