Christian Bioethics

This is an outstanding book: Bioethics and the Christian Life by David VanDrunen (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009).  While I’ve only read a few books on this subject (including stuff by Stanley Hauerwas and Gilbert Meilaender), I’m glad that this one found its way to my shelves.  I’ll no doubt pass it around to elders, pastors, and church teachers/leaders who counsel people going through tough medical issues.  One major premise of the book which is outstanding is VanDrunen’s emphasis on “virtues we should cultivate in order to be prepared to make such choices well.  Becoming a morally responsible bioethics decision-maker is the task of a lifetime and cannot be reduced to figuring out the right answer at a particular moment of crisis” (p. 15). 

Exactly!  We make tough decisions based on biblical views of sin, salvation, and service – and we make those tough choices as part of a community who may be affected by the choices we make.  VanDrunen well calls us away from selfishness and isolation in bioethical decisions.  “Not only must we think of others in the  midst of our own suffering, but we must also take account of how the decisions we make while we suffer often deeply affect others” (p. 83).  This is something to remember now before we suffer deeply: love your neighbor as yourself!

VanDrunen talks about virtues (faith, hope, love, courage, contentment, and wisdom) from a biblical perspective, with faith as the God-given fount of the other virtues.  This section on virtues comes after he sets the theological table by reminding the readers of the main truths of the faith (God’s sovereignty and providence, man as image bearing social creatures, sin, death, salvation, resurrection, and eternal life just to name a few).  One part of the virtues section I thought was outstanding was his section on contentment.  Our first responsibility as we face a tough choice is to learn contentment in whatever condition we experience, accepting the fact that God in his will and providence may not relieve us from the pain or struggle. 

“Then, from this perspective of contentment, the Christian should consider morally permissible ways to remedy her condition.  I would argue, moreover, that true contentment may significantly alter our perspective on the dilemmas we face and it may even persuade us, at times, that remaining in our undesired condition is the most ethically satisfying decision” (p. 90).

I’ll post more from the last part (where VanDrunen digs into some bioethical situations) some other time.  In summary, for now, I highly recommend this book for a variety of Christians from different backgrounds and traditions.  The book doesn’t attack all the health care woes and conundrums we face in the U.S., but it does focus on Christians and how our faith should influence our tough decisions in a God-honoring, neighbor-loving way.  Because we do live in a time and country where there are thousands of health care conundrums, we need this book all the more!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Specifics of Gloryfing God

We all know the excellent opening statement of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.  Of course this is totally biblical (1 Cor 10, Col 3, 1 Pet 4, etc.), but sometimes it gets fuzzy in practice.  In other words, what exactly does it mean to glorify God?  How do we do it? 

Thomas Watson, in his typically clear way, summarizes the biblical teaching on glorifying God in a concise, memorable, and practical way.  Here are a few comments of his. 

We aim at God’s glory:

1) When we prefer God’s glory above all other things; above credit, estate, relations; when the glory of God coming in competition with them, we prefer his glory before them.  If relations lie in our way to heaven, we must either leap over them, or tread upon them.

2) When we are content that God’s will should take place, though it may cross ours.  Lord, I am content to be a loser if thou be a gainer; to have less health, if I have more grace, and thou more glory.

3) When we are content to be outshined by others in gifts and esteem, so that his glory may be increased.  A man that has God in his heart, and God’s glory in his eye, desires that God should be exalted; and if this be effected, let who will be the instrument, he rejoices.  …Let my candle go out, if the Sun of Righteousness may shine.

He lists quite a few more, showing the Scriptures that guide us in glorifying God.    I especially liked the three quoted above: we glorify God by dying to self, dying to the world, and being humble (esteeming others better than ourselves).   We glorify God when we really just quit thinking of ourselves and focus on him then our neighbor, as the summary of the law teaches in Matthew 22.  Just for your info, here are a few more Watson lists.  We glorify God when we 1) walk cheerfully, 2) stand up for his truths, 3) praise him, 4) draw others to him, and 5) live holy lives.  Again, Watson uses Scripture and illustrates these in a clear way. 

This book – A Body of Divinity – is based on the Shorter Catechism, so it covers the main topics of Christian doctrine.  I highly recommend it.  You can get it sent to your door for just under 15 bucks (last time I checked).  It’s certainly worth giving up two months of Netflix to get this book.

Above quotes taken from pages 11-17.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christian Liberty, Blogs, and Beer

The blogosphere is filled with trends and fads – blogs have the “power” to set trends, even in Christian communities.  Though this may rub a few of our readers the wrong way, one trend or fad I can’t help but notice is to include all things smoke and drink into the blog, possibly under the name Christian liberty.  In the blog world of Calvinism, for example, it is trendy and fashionable to compare weak Christians to light beer and strong (manly?) Christians to stout ale.  It is trendy in the blog world to trumpet fat cigars and dark beer while even mocking Christians who do not do these things or do them in “weakened” form.

A few things have to be said to this.  First, Christian liberty is different than the liberty we enjoy in many Western cultures.  Civil liberty means you may listen to music “x” as long as it isn’t over a certain decibel level.  However, Christian liberty is quite different because 1) it puts our neighbor first and 2) because it is tempered with self-denial.  Calvin explains it this way (while reflecting on Rom 14.1, 13, & 1 Cor 8.9, among other texts in his Institutes, III.10-12):

“We who are strong ought to bear with the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves; but let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.”

“We have due control over freedom if it makes no difference to us to restrict it when it is fruitful [i.e. benefiting our neighbor] to do so.”

“Nothing is plainer than this rule: that we should use our freedom if it results in the edification of our neighbor, but if it does not help our neighbor, then we should forgo it.”

“Our freedom is not given against our feeble neighbors, for love makes us their servants in all things….”

In other words, Christian liberty (as with all true liberty!) has boundaries.  Christian liberty is tempered with love for neighbor (think of him/her before our liberty) and self-denial (we don’t need to indulge in this liberty).  If Christian liberty is not tempered with love for neighbor and self-denial, it is more like a high school fad (i.e. the brand of jeans you wear) than a Christian ethic.

Matthew Henry, in his comments on 1 Cor 8.7-13, says it this way: “We must deny ourselves rather than occasion their [the weak] stumbling…if Christ had such compassion as to die for them, we should have so much compassion for them as to deny ourselves, for their sakes.”  “We must not rigorously claim our own rights, to the hurt and ruin of a brother’s soul.”

I don’t have time to comment on it, but one other thing should be considered: it is probably not a sign of “weakness” if a Christian does not drink beer or smoke – it doesn’t make him the weaker brother.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christian Humility

The great Dutch Puritan, Wilhelmus a Brakel (d. 1711) has a most penetrating section on Christian humility in volume four of The Christian’s Reasonable Service ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999).

Of course, Brakel starts with the gospel, how Christ humbled himself to save the ungodly.  He hammers home the truth of what it means that we are ungodly.

One object of humility is “man himself” (p. 68).  “Due to self-knowledge, he knows that there is neither excellence nor anything desirable to be found in him.  In his own eyes he is a great nothing, and he views himself as such.  He thus sinks away in his own nothingness as a stone cast into the water….”  True Christian humility “issues forth from a right judgment of one’s self.  The humble acknowledge that they are made of dust and reside in tabernacles of clay.  They know that they have sinned and come short of the glory of God; are blind, miserable, naked, and wretched, and that they are thus abominable, hateful, and intolerable before God…. (p. 70).  This is what Brakel calls “the book of sin” which is a means to learn humility.  “If you take note of your falling into sin, your goal being the humbling of yourself, you will learn experientially that you are polluted, impure, wicked, atheistic, and abominable in your heart, which time and again brings forth like deeds” (p. 77).  A humble person will say my soul “is a pool of all manner of impure monstrosities” (p. 74).  How can a person be arrogant if he truly reads the book he wrote called “Totally Depraved?”

The other object of humility is a Christian’s neighbor (friend or enemy).  Based on Romans 11.20, Rom 12.3, and Phil 2.3, Brakel notes that a truly humble Christian loves his neighbor – which is motivated by the will of God that he do so.  “In comparing himself to his neighbor, he appears in his own eyes as copper compared to gold, and as lead compared to silver” (p. 69).  When a Christian evaluates his own wicked heart, he looks at his neighbor and says, “There is no way that he/she is a worse sinner than me!”

Brakel also magnifies the grace of God.  He writes that the humble soul realizes he is not even worthy that the skies cover his head, much less the love of God almighty in the death of his Son.  The twin towers of surely I was sinful from birth and Jesus died to save sinners makes the Christian the most humble soul on earth.  In summary, a right view of our dreadful depravity leads to a high view of glorious grace which leads to humility of heart.

In Luther-like terms, I’m worthless, Christ is precious; I am nothing, he is everything.  In Calvin’s terms, “true and sound wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves” (Institutes, I.I.i).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Bioethics

Can’t wait for this one!

Here’s the blurb fromm Crossway’s website:

Just about everyone will face a difficult bioethics decision at some point. In this book a theologian, ethicist, and lawyer equips Christians to make such decisions based on biblical truth, wisdom, and virtue.

Though a relatively new discipline, bioethics has generated extraordinary interest due to a number of socially pressing issues. Bioethics and the Christian Life places bioethics within the holistic context of the Christian life, both developing a general Christian approach to making bioethics decisions and addressing a number of specific, controversial areas of bioethics.

Clear, concise, and well-organized, the book is divided into three sections. The first lays the theological foundation for bioethics decision-making and discusses the importance of wisdom and virtue in working through these issues. The second section addresses beginning-of-life issues, such as abortion, stem-cell research, and infertility treatments. The third section covers end-of-life issues, such as living wills, accepting and refusing medical treatment, and treatment of patients in permanent vegetative states.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

What Does Real Forgiveness Look Like?

It is hard beyond belief to forgive someone who really wronged you.  Sometimes even little things that others do to annoy, irritate, or just tick us off make it nearly impossible to forgive that person.  Remember that neighbor last fall who threw all his leaves on your side of the fence?  If we’d have things our way, next year he’d get twice the amount of leaves on his side!

Well, obviously revenge (even “leaf revenge”) is not becoming for a Christian.  As Ken Sande wrote, “Christians are the most forgiven people in the world.  Therefore, we should be the most forgiving people in the world” (p. 204).  In other words, we should treat those who wrong us like God treated us: with abundant mercy and forgiveness.

Here are a few notes from Sande on what our forgiveness should look like, based on the gospel.

1) Forgiveness is an act of the will.

2) Forgiveness is not a passive process of forgetting or letting something fade in memory.  Rather, it is an active process which involves a conscious choice and deliberate course of action.  Is 43.25 says that God has willed to remember our sins no more.  Same for us: we draw on God’s grace and decide not to think or talk about what others have done to hurt us.

3) Forgiveness is not excusing by saying, “Its okay, it wasn’t that big of a deal.”  Forgiveness is the opposite of excusing – forgiveness says, “yes, we both know that what you did was wrong, but since God has forgiven me, so also I forgive you.”

4) Forgiveness can be costly and painful.  Sometimes certain effects of a person’s sins linger for quite a long time – you have to fight against painful memories, work on trusting the person, and sometimes you may have to deal with physical costs such as finances or injury.  The forgiving heart will put the other person first and self last.

Again, Sande repeatedly reminds the “forgiver” of the gospel:  I will remember their sins no more…he has removed our transgressions from us…love keeps no record of wrongs (Jer 31.34, Ps 103.12, 1 Cor 13.5, etc).  This radical forgiveness results in our radical forgiveness of others.

I’ll close with a few promises a forgiving person makes when he or she says, “I forgive you.”

1) I will not dwell on this incident.

2) I will not bring up this incident again and use it against you.

3) I will not talk to others about this incident.

4) I will not let this incident stand between us or hinder our personal relationship.

This is where our faith in Christ hits the road: if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other, as the Lord has forgiven you, so you must also forgive (Col 3.13).

See The Peacemaker 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 204-224.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Puritans: Day Two

Two days ago, Andrew noted some clear and wonderful gospel statements by the Puritan, Richard Sibbes. Following in his steps, I thought posting a bit of Thomas Watson on the Ten Commandments would be worth while. In my opinion, the best commentaries on the Ten Commandments are those that clearly distinguish between law and gospel, covenant of works and covenant of grace, as well as the Heidelberg/Reformed guilt/grace/gratitude pattern of the Christian life. In other words, when speaking of the Ten Commandments, the best discussions are those which keep the first and third use of the law clear and distinct, those which clearly note the difference between justification and sanctification. Watson does these things. Here are a few random quotes from Watson’s The Ten Commandments (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999).

Justification: “Not our obedience, but Christ’s merits procure acceptance [before God]” (p. 3).

Justification: In two ways the moral law is abolished for Christians: 1) “In respect of justification. They are not justified by their obedience to the moral law.” 2) “In respect of its curse. They are freed from its curse and condemnatory power” (Ibid.).

Law/Gospel: “The moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength…but the gospel gives strength” (p. 44).

First Use of the Law: The moral law “is a glass to show us our sins, that seeing our pollution and misery, we may be forced to flee to Christ…” (Ibid.).

Covenant of Works/Grace Distinction: The moral law, in those two senses, is abolished for Christians, yet “it remains a perpetual rule to believers.” Though it not be their Savior, it is their guide. Though it be not foedus, a covenant of life; yet it is a norma, a rule of life” (Ibid.).

Sanctification: “God commands us to turn from sin, but alas! we have not power to turn; therefore he has promised to turn us, to put his Spirit within us, and to turn the heart of stone to flesh…. Therefore, Christian, be not discouraged, though thou hast no strength of thy own, God will give thee strength” (p. 47).

With these things in mind, even when Watson gets quite tedious on the different aspects of the Ten Commandments, the reader knows he is not blending biblical and reformation doctrines of justification/sanctification, grace/gratitude, law/gospel, or CoW/CoG. Watson’s treatment of the 10 C’s also is helpful because he often reminds the reader of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins; he also writes topically, in a Q/A way, which makes this book easy to read.

You can find this and other works of Watson here.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Medicine, Patients, and Patience

In a most excellent essay on Christians facing illness, Hauerwas chastens modern medical practice and ethics: “Modern medicine was formed by a modern culture that forced upon medicine the impossible role of bandaging the wounds of societies that are built upon the premise that God does not matter” (p 352). Modern medicine, he continues, is made up of a whole bunch of people who have only one thing in common – a fear of death (p 353). A whole bunch of people trying to push death far away creates a whole bunch of other people who follow the false hope of death being “way off.” ‘We can fix it!’ modern medicine cries; alternatively, modern man cries ‘we can fix it,’ which attitude in turn infiltrates modern hospitals.

“Technological miracles have schooled us in the false hope that death might be avoided altogether…. Modern medicine exemplifies a secular social order shaped by mechanistic economic and political arrangements, arrangements that are in turn shaped by the metaphysical presumption that our existence has no purpose other than that which we arbitrarily create” (p 354).

Hauerwas tells us not to be formed by such thinking when suddenly we’re in the doctor’s office facing the bad news of terminal illness. To be “patient patients” we need to understand and practice patience before we become dependent upon an oxygen tank or 7 pills a day. “To be patient when we are sick requires first that we learn how to practice patience when we are not sick” (p 364). “The patient patient knows – and can teach others, including physicians – that the enemy is neither the illness nor the death it intimates, but rather the fatalism these tempt us to as we meet our ‘bad luck’ with impatience.”

If you need some bio-ethics type reading, this piece should be on your list!

For the full article, see pages 348-366 of Stanley Hauerwas, The Hauerwas Reader ed. John Berkman and Michael Cartwright (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001).

shane lems

sunnyside wa