“Those who do what is true come to the light so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (John 3:21)
You may have seen the articles in the paper last Saturday. They were in quite different sections; but on the same topic. In the court news, there was an article about a woman, appearing in the Christchurch District Court on a charge of infanticide. The woman, who had already been convicted of disposing of the body of another newborn baby, admitted to this second incident of killing her full-term healthy baby girl, almost immediately after giving birth.[1] Further on in the same paper, in the World News section[2] a more extensive article explains how two medical ethicists have argued in the British Medical Journal that killing newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes. The report’s authors (from the Universities of Melbourne and Milan) say “after-birth abortion should be considered late-term abortion because there is not much of a difference between them biologically.” They go on to argue that “foetuses and babies that are hours old do not have the same ‘moral status as actual persons.’ For these two academics, their ethical decisions are based on the ‘the ability to attribute a certain value to your own life, the ability to make plans for the future, the ability to appreciate and value that you are actually alive’. While these capabilities occur very early in life, they argue, new born babies in their first few days don’t have that moral status – and so, are not actual persons. Therefore, killing a new-born is not infanticide but ‘after-birth abortion’ and should be allowed wherever abortion is legal.
This is stirring stuff. I imagine both stories will have set you thinking – and possibly judging the thoughts and actions of the mother and academics. I’m not planning to speak this morning about what are the right or wrong outcomes in this very difficult and complicated issue. What I want to do instead is to ask you to consider, how you, as a Christian, approach such difficult issues in this increasingly complex world, and; what does the exploration we have been on over these last weeks, as we have explored an expanding emerging view of God, Jesus and the Bible for the 21st century – what does that have to say to the challenging ethical context in which we find ourselves on a daily basis? Of course this is not just about abortion, but genetic, embryonic and stem-cell research, crime and punishment, ecological responsibility, euthanasia, arms manufacture, nuclear energy – to name but a few. How do we as Christians, in this 21st century, engage with all this complexity and determine a way of action that is, as the writer of the Gospel of John describes, ‘done in God’?
For the young Christchurch mother, we don’t know what shaped her decisions – but we can guess they may have been driven by her own very personal and immediate responses – perhaps out of fear, despair, or illness. For the medical ethicists, their decisions were also individually based – this time, first from the new born baby’s situation, who according to them, had not yet reached the moral position of valuing their own life – and, so could be disposed of at the will of another.
One Christian alternative to deal with all this, is to trot out the rules: the Ten Commandments say “You shall not kill”; both the Christchurch mother and the Australian ethicists are wrong; the church has spoken; end of story. Another alternative is to say nothing – to consider it all too difficult – washing our hands of liability and betraying all responsibility of care with our ‘safe silence’ ... a path humanity so often takes, becoming colluders by default in crimes of crucifixion, holocaust and genocide. In my opinion, neither of these alternatives is persuasive; one too simplistic, the other too horrific.
Professor Bill Loader from Australia, who has been one of our conversation partners these last weeks, reminds us that “The Church has often been a place where people have expected answers. And often, especially in the past, some in the Church have given answers even when people weren’t asking questions. Worse still, they have been often quick to condemn people. Nobody appreciates ‘holier than thou’ people or those who seem to have to have all the answers... for [Jesus] people mattered most and rules or guidelines were there to help people; people were not made to be fitted into someone else’s rules and regulations - not even God’s. God is much more generous than that!”[3]
Bill Loader suggests at least three interweaving points for 21st century people of faith, as we approach the complexities of ethical decisions.
1. “Church carries with it nearly 3000 years of wisdom on a wide range of issues. It’s worth listening to what people found to be right in the past.” – but not to be bound by that.
2. “Ultimately, it is respect for people, caring about others and oneself, in short, love, which lies at the heart of Jesus’ picture of God. Everything, even creation itself, stems from God’s goodness.”
3. Making decisions in community is likely to be more effective. “as soon as I start looking at specific situations, I grasp for every bit of assistance I can get. Not that I don’t trust my own ability to make a decision. But I know myself well enough to know that I can usually only see things in a limited way. I’m not God. Others will see things I don’t see. This is one of the reasons why the more we can make decisions about right and wrong in discussion with others, the better. Also, if I am deciding on something where I am emotionally involved, there’s an even greater chance that I may skew my own reasoning and neglect important things. This is also where the wisdom and the rules of previous generations become very helpful. But they need to be weighed up carefully.” [4]
Drawing on the wisdom of our heritage, respecting and loving the whole creation, and working in community: three helpful pointers.
Today’s New Testament reading does that. The Gospel of John, the last of the biblical ones to be written, emerged out of a community which had already undertaken significant theological and metaphorical reflection on the life of Jesus – and the way in which Jesus impacted on the lives of his followers. Today’s very familiar reading – which includes probably the most well-known, best-loved and most-misunderstood verse in the whole Bible (John 3:16) – is within the context of an encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. Nicodemus – a man of faith, a leader, a teacher of the law, is starting to question his life direction – perhaps seeing things in a more complex light, as he ages. The old answers – the old rules – the old laws don’t seem to be enough to make sense of the life he is leading. Nicodemus seeks to expand his understanding and so he comes to Jesus (seeking light at night – one of John’s many plays with language.) Nicodemus doesn’t appear in any other gospel – perhaps he is an historic figure – maybe not – but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that in this story told by our spiritual ancestors, we meet someone who, like us, seeks meaning in the midst of his journey of faith. And in response to Nicodemus’ questioning, Jesus suggests that new ways of looking at things are necessary: we need to start again – to see other-wise – to open our eyes as newborn babies – to look around, lifting our eyes to a new ‘horizon [for] our becoming’[5] – one that John calls ‘eternal life’. For God so loved the world that he gave us Jesus so that we could have eternal life. And let’s digress, to be clear here. This ‘eternal life’ is not about some future life in heaven – or immortality – living forever (those are more recent interpretive readings and aberrations of what the gospel is suggesting here.) John’s use of the language of eternal life is clearly pointing to the new life Jesus has promised Nicodemus for here and now – new life like that which a baby experiences moving from the protectiveness of the womb, out into the vast possibilities of what we call life. Eternal life is a metaphor for living life to the full - flourishing now and into the future within the unending presence of God, who is Light and Love.
It’s within this new, opening and constantly emerging horizon that we might be invited to place our ethical questions. “In approaching them our guidelines are few. They all flow from [a deep] concern [and love] for people and include ... questions [like]: Are the solutions in the long term interest of the world and its people? Is an adequate data base being considered? Have the possible effects on people and their environment been considered? Are the voices of those directly affected being heard clearly? Are the questions being asked in a way which ignores or excludes other relevant issues?”[6] Who benefits from any decision?
It’s from within the context of such questions we might ponder our stance on the infanticide and after-birth abortion stories, with which I began this sermon. As the Church enters these essential conversations, which are going on around us all the time, we need to remember that we join, not as people who have the answers – but as those who have a deep love and concern for all people, all animals, all plants and for the very Earth itself.. We bring into these conversations, a particular and significant perspective, as we seek to be a community cooperating with God in bringing about eternal life – or, put in different language – seeking to act as creative partners in cosmic flourishing within the Eternal Presence of Life-giving Creativity.
[1] “Mother admits killing newborn” Otago Daily Times, Saturday March 3, 2012 COURT, p.28
[2] “Paper argues for killing newborns” Otago Daily Times, Saturday March 3, 2012, WORLD, p.13
[3] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/DKRightWrong.htm
[4] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/DKRightWrong.htm
[5] Jantzen Grace M., Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Manchester University Press, 1998)
[6] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/DKRightWrong.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment