Euthanasia

The Story
Last year just after the Terry Schiavo story broke in North America, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a controversy generated when a Catholic Italian man, after he spent years pleading for his respirator to be removed, finally succeeded. Piergiorgio Welby died soon after the respirator was removed. The Diocese of Rome refused permission for Welby to have a church funeral claiming that he had committed suicide and that he was doomed to Hell for eternity. In response, the former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, wrote a letter to the Vatican asking for a reconsideration of its current position on end-of-life issues. While the Catholic Church is alone among Christian Denominations in its assertion that Hell is the punishment for euthanasia /suicide it is not alone in its negative views of euthanasia. Most denominations have in fact produced documents which are largely anti-euthanasia. The Church of England, the United Church of Canada, and to a lesser extent, the United Methodists (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in Canada represent some of the only dissenting voices and yet it would be wrong to consider their views “pro-euthanasia”.

The History
Hippocrates mentions euthanasia specifically in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”
The English Common Law from the 1300’s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. In 1828, euthanasia was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. Support grew in the 1900’s. Societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive Euthanasia. In 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain.
In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered “life unworthy of life”.
In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. At the same time in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened even further. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. An Australian province approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia’s legislative branch in 1997. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 in Michigan for a murder.
More recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who had been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed just the opposite.  

The Truth

Sadly the Bible is not always the end all and be all when it comes to hard questions. In short, the Bible does not specifically address every issue in a clear and simple manner. Perhaps this is a good thing. This means that we are not meant to be drones; it means that we are meant to be thinking and reasoning people of faith who investigate truth rather than proof-text our own beliefs. 
What the Bible does do – is give us some clues that can help us to come to a better understanding of life and death issues.
A Typical Bible Debate
Person 1) Thou shall not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17) Euthanasia is Murder and that is all there is to it!

Person 2) It’s not murder. It’s taking people away from suffering.

1) …yeah by killing them; the ends just don’t justify the means.

2) You know “thou shall not kill” isn’t the end all be all. Right after that command is given, Moses starts listing exceptions. In Deuteronomy 22:23 God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. In other words there are times when ending a life is justifiable. Also in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 it says that capital punishment was an allowable way to deal with murderers. In other words – although the Bible says “You should not kill” it also gives us some times when it is allowable to do so. Euthanasia could just as easily be one of those times when it’s understandable to end a life!

1) Protecting people from murders is one thing; starving someone’s grandmother to death in a hospital where there is plenty of food all around her is whole different story. In Genesis it says that we are made in the image of God and that is the reason we are not to kill, because killing the image of God is like burning an effigy of God. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:22-25) Is a person in the hospital somehow no longer made in the image of God?

2) The Bible doesn’t really say what the image of God is. It certainly isn’t how we look. I doubt very much that Good needs genitals or that God has to eat for sustenance! It may be that the image of God is our self-awareness. Really, it could be just about anything. In any case this is not about arbitrarily killing someone. This is about ending the suffering of someone who is already moments away from death. This is about being humane.

1) What you call humane – I call murder. Look this is simple… is that a carrot lying on the bed or is it a human being. Is that person still alive or not? ‘Cause where I’m from if something is both human and alive than killing him or her is called murder.

2) When someone is completely brain dead - that is it. It is just a body being forced to breath by machines and nothing more. It’s not really even human. It’s just a shell and there is nothing wrong with taking water away or food away from them if that is what they would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to die peacefully. They’re already dead, the mind is gone. Why do you want to keep all these vegetables around taking up valuable space and time? Hospitals waste millions and millions of dollars on people that are already dead while people who need help can’t get it.

Besides there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide anyway. If your life is miserable and you are in constant pain and there is no getting better for you then you have every right to die with dignity!

1) Who determines what “dieing with dignity” is anyway. I think it’s the coward’s way out. Run and Hide – End it all – I think facing death head on is the only way to die with dignity. And the fact that hospitals don’t have enough money to deal with everybody doesn’t matter one bit! If a hospital only has $10 and two patients, the moral thing to do isn’t to just kill one off. The moral thing to do is to get the hospital more funds. Lack of money does not create morality!

2) The Bible says, “to every season there is an appointed time, a time to live and a time to die… a time to kill and a time to heal”. (Ecclesiastes 3)

The Verses up for discussion

Abimelech - Judges 9:50-54

Abimelech was a wicked man who usurped leadership of Israel. When a woman dropped a millstone on his head, as we was dying he had his armor-bearer kill him so people would not say he was killed by a woman.

Ahithophel - 2 Samuel 17:23 (read the commentary for them)

Ahithophel was an advisor who encouraged Absalom to rebel against David. He gave advice that would have led to David’s defeat, but the advice was not taken and David escaped. He hanged himself.

Zimri - 1 Kings 16:18

Zimri was a wicked man who killed the king of Israel and reigned 7 days. Then Omri led Israel against Zimri. Seeing he would be defeated, he burned his house down around himself.

Philippian jailer - Acts 16:27,28

If a jailer lost his prisoners, he was punished with torture and then death. Thinking his prisoners had escaped the jailer in Philippi was about to kill himself, but Paul stopped him.
Innocent - Exodus 23:7
Do not kill the innocent and righteous.

King Saul - 1 Samuel 31:3-5

Saul rebelled against God, so God rejected Him as king. He was about to be captured in battle, and fearing torture, he asked his armor-bearer to kill him. He refused, so Saul fell on his sword and the armor-bearer did the same. [1 Chronicles 10:4,5; cf. 2 Samuel 1:1-16]
Life is a blessing from God - Gen. 2:7

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man    
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious
Body without spirit is dead - James 2:26 (Different word for Spirit – a different language)

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the “Holy” Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of “Truth”)
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
a) a life giving spirit
b) a human soul that has left the body
c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)
a) of the wind, hence the wind itself
b) breath of nostrils or mouth
 

Good Questions

 Own Body. Does not God own the whole being? The argument that “everyone has a right to do with their own body as they see fit” does not seem all that solid. For example, prostitution is done to ones own body, so also is drug use – but are those things really crimes done only to ones own body or are their other effects? Nothing is done in a vacuum; all action has affects on others.

Quality of Life. Many of us believe that life is life only when it is healthy and comfortable or “average”. But what does this say about how we view the handicapped or the mentally challenged?

“Good Death” The term euthanasia has a long and complex history. In its original usage, meaning reflected etymology; “good death” referred to efforts to keep terminal patients free from pain. Who can condemn the desire for a good death? What does it mean to have a good death? What is the meaning of suffering? In an age of advanced medical technology, when do we cross the line between saving a life and causing a `bad death’?
Natural? What is so natural about being feed through a tube or having oxygen pumped into ones self mechanically?

Statements I am willing to make!

The comfortability of family and friends has no bearing on the morality of euthanasia.

Medical costs have nothing to do with the morality of euthanasia.

Dying with dignity is far too subjective as to provide any solid answers.  

Each side in the elective death debate can cite long-standing ethical principles to support their positions. Both sides, however, face some troubling difficulties should avoid attempts to set in stone their views as social policies.
Death can never be taken lightly and should always been seen as a tragic loss. 
In end-of-life dilemmas, participation involves a sense of awe and reverence, which leads to humility. Suffering and dying are deeply intimate and personal experiences.
No matter how well intentioned people are on both sides of the debate, we, all of us, remains limited by our own human understanding. We cannot see with the eyes of God and should not pretend as if we can. 
Where there are heated disputes within families or friends with differing recollections life should be the preferred choice.
The period just before death can be a profoundly spiritual time for both the ill and the loved ones. This should be remembered and respected.  

The church should be a frontrunner in providing spiritual, emotional and physical support for sufferers and families alike and should always be aware that the Bible has no specific or clear statements on euthanasia as we know it today – what it does have is “love your neighbor”.

Euthanasia

The Story
Last year just after the Terry Schiavo story broke in North America, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a controversy generated when a Catholic Italian man, after he spent years pleading for his respirator to be removed, finally succeeded. Piergiorgio Welby died soon after the respirator was removed. The Diocese of Rome refused permission for Welby to have a church funeral claiming that he had committed suicide and that he was doomed to Hell for eternity. In response, the former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, wrote a letter to the Vatican asking for a reconsideration of its current position on end-of-life issues. While the Catholic Church is alone among Christian Denominations in its assertion that Hell is the punishment for euthanasia /suicide it is not alone in its negative views of euthanasia. Most denominations have in fact produced documents which are largely anti-euthanasia. The Church of England, the United Church of Canada, and to a lesser extent, the United Methodists (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in Canada represent some of the only dissenting voices and yet it would be wrong to consider their views “pro-euthanasia”.

The History
Hippocrates mentions euthanasia specifically in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”
The English Common Law from the 1300’s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. In 1828, euthanasia was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. Support grew in the 1900’s. Societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive Euthanasia. In 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain.
In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered “life unworthy of life”.
In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. At the same time in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened even further. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. An Australian province approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia’s legislative branch in 1997. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 in Michigan for a murder.
More recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who had been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed just the opposite.  

The Truth

Sadly the Bible is not always the end all and be all when it comes to hard questions. In short, the Bible does not specifically address every issue in a clear and simple manner. Perhaps this is a good thing. This means that we are not meant to be drones; it means that we are meant to be thinking and reasoning people of faith who investigate truth rather than proof-text our own beliefs. 
What the Bible does do – is give us some clues that can help us to come to a better understanding of life and death issues.
A Typical Bible Debate
Person 1) Thou shall not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17) Euthanasia is Murder and that is all there is to it!

Person 2) It’s not murder. It’s taking people away from suffering.

1) …yeah by killing them; the ends just don’t justify the means.

2) You know “thou shall not kill” isn’t the end all be all. Right after that command is given, Moses starts listing exceptions. In Deuteronomy 22:23 God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. In other words there are times when ending a life is justifiable. Also in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 it says that capital punishment was an allowable way to deal with murderers. In other words – although the Bible says “You should not kill” it also gives us some times when it is allowable to do so. Euthanasia could just as easily be one of those times when it’s understandable to end a life!

1) Protecting people from murders is one thing; starving someone’s grandmother to death in a hospital where there is plenty of food all around her is whole different story. In Genesis it says that we are made in the image of God and that is the reason we are not to kill, because killing the image of God is like burning an effigy of God. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:22-25) Is a person in the hospital somehow no longer made in the image of God?

2) The Bible doesn’t really say what the image of God is. It certainly isn’t how we look. I doubt very much that Good needs genitals or that God has to eat for sustenance! It may be that the image of God is our self-awareness. Really, it could be just about anything. In any case this is not about arbitrarily killing someone. This is about ending the suffering of someone who is already moments away from death. This is about being humane.

1) What you call humane – I call murder. Look this is simple… is that a carrot lying on the bed or is it a human being. Is that person still alive or not? ‘Cause where I’m from if something is both human and alive than killing him or her is called murder.

2) When someone is completely brain dead - that is it. It is just a body being forced to breath by machines and nothing more. It’s not really even human. It’s just a shell and there is nothing wrong with taking water away or food away from them if that is what they would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to die peacefully. They’re already dead, the mind is gone. Why do you want to keep all these vegetables around taking up valuable space and time? Hospitals waste millions and millions of dollars on people that are already dead while people who need help can’t get it.

Besides there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide anyway. If your life is miserable and you are in constant pain and there is no getting better for you then you have every right to die with dignity!

1) Who determines what “dieing with dignity” is anyway. I think it’s the coward’s way out. Run and Hide – End it all – I think facing death head on is the only way to die with dignity. And the fact that hospitals don’t have enough money to deal with everybody doesn’t matter one bit! If a hospital only has $10 and two patients, the moral thing to do isn’t to just kill one off. The moral thing to do is to get the hospital more funds. Lack of money does not create morality!

2) The Bible says, “to every season there is an appointed time, a time to live and a time to die… a time to kill and a time to heal”. (Ecclesiastes 3)

The Verses up for discussion

Abimelech - Judges 9:50-54

Abimelech was a wicked man who usurped leadership of Israel. When a woman dropped a millstone on his head, as we was dying he had his armor-bearer kill him so people would not say he was killed by a woman.

Ahithophel - 2 Samuel 17:23 (read the commentary for them)

Ahithophel was an advisor who encouraged Absalom to rebel against David. He gave advice that would have led to David’s defeat, but the advice was not taken and David escaped. He hanged himself.

Zimri - 1 Kings 16:18

Zimri was a wicked man who killed the king of Israel and reigned 7 days. Then Omri led Israel against Zimri. Seeing he would be defeated, he burned his house down around himself.

Philippian jailer - Acts 16:27,28

If a jailer lost his prisoners, he was punished with torture and then death. Thinking his prisoners had escaped the jailer in Philippi was about to kill himself, but Paul stopped him.
Innocent - Exodus 23:7
Do not kill the innocent and righteous.

King Saul - 1 Samuel 31:3-5

Saul rebelled against God, so God rejected Him as king. He was about to be captured in battle, and fearing torture, he asked his armor-bearer to kill him. He refused, so Saul fell on his sword and the armor-bearer did the same. [1 Chronicles 10:4,5; cf. 2 Samuel 1:1-16]
Life is a blessing from God - Gen. 2:7

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man    
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious
Body without spirit is dead - James 2:26 (Different word for Spirit – a different language)

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the “Holy” Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of “Truth”)
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
a) a life giving spirit
b) a human soul that has left the body
c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)
a) of the wind, hence the wind itself
b) breath of nostrils or mouth
 

Good Questions

 Own Body. Does not God own the whole being? The argument that “everyone has a right to do with their own body as they see fit” does not seem all that solid. For example, prostitution is done to ones own body, so also is drug use – but are those things really crimes done only to ones own body or are their other effects? Nothing is done in a vacuum; all action has affects on others.

Quality of Life. Many of us believe that life is life only when it is healthy and comfortable or “average”. But what does this say about how we view the handicapped or the mentally challenged?

“Good Death” The term euthanasia has a long and complex history. In its original usage, meaning reflected etymology; “good death” referred to efforts to keep terminal patients free from pain. Who can condemn the desire for a good death? What does it mean to have a good death? What is the meaning of suffering? In an age of advanced medical technology, when do we cross the line between saving a life and causing a `bad death’?
Natural? What is so natural about being feed through a tube or having oxygen pumped into ones self mechanically?

Statements I am willing to make!

The comfortability of family and friends has no bearing on the morality of euthanasia.

Medical costs have nothing to do with the morality of euthanasia.

Dying with dignity is far too subjective as to provide any solid answers.  

Each side in the elective death debate can cite long-standing ethical principles to support their positions. Both sides, however, face some troubling difficulties should avoid attempts to set in stone their views as social policies.
Death can never be taken lightly and should always been seen as a tragic loss. 
In end-of-life dilemmas, participation involves a sense of awe and reverence, which leads to humility. Suffering and dying are deeply intimate and personal experiences.
No matter how well intentioned people are on both sides of the debate, we, all of us, remains limited by our own human understanding. We cannot see with the eyes of God and should not pretend as if we can. 
Where there are heated disputes within families or friends with differing recollections life should be the preferred choice.
The period just before death can be a profoundly spiritual time for both the ill and the loved ones. This should be remembered and respected.  

The church should be a frontrunner in providing spiritual, emotional and physical support for sufferers and families alike and should always be aware that the Bible has no specific or clear statements on euthanasia as we know it today – what it does have is “love your neighbor”.

Women and the Church: A Case Study

A Case Study based on a book I recently read: 

David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw. Readings in Christian Ethics. Volume 2: Issues and Applications.

Grand Rapids: Baker, pg 332-333.
Case: Missionary strategy
      Two women missionaries serve in a remote tribal context.  The fledgling church in their care needs leadership, so one of the women seeks ordination in order to preach and give the sacraments.  Another missionary in the next valley, however, opposes women’s ordination.  So he decides to take the hazardous plane rides to the women’s area, taking time away from his duties, so he can preach for the women.  He believes God will bless the mission if it honors the divine order for male and female roles.  The field leader for the mission believes that the church should not normally ordain women, but he also thinks that in unusual circumstances, women should preach and give the sacraments.  The women believe the man is intruding and trivializing their ministry.  The man is acting out of strong convictions.  What should the field leader do?  Are concessions possible or would they compromise important principles?  How can the field leader best affirm his missionaries and preserve the ministry?

Answers Provided by Brad Childs 

(1)   The Facts
The facts we have
      The two women are already missionaries serving in a remote area. This means that the missionary organization has already granted them a certain amount of authority (though exactly what this entails is unclear). In addition one of the two women is seeking ordination. Another missionary in the next valley believes that this course of action is unbiblical; as a result he has begun to travel to the women’s location in order to take upon himself the leadership role. We also know that this mans actions have resulted in some negative results on his original missionary tasks as shown to us by the statement: It “take[s] time away from his duties”.  We also know that the man is at least somewhat unwanted and possibly uninvited. We also know that the man seems to have genuine and caring motives and that these are due to the fact that he believes God will bless the mission for keeping what he calls “the divine order”. We also know that the field leader is normally not in agreement with the ordination of women but that he does believe “in unusual circumstances, women should preach and give the sacraments”.
The facts we don’t have
      In reading this case study I found myself wondering about a few issues. For example: Is the missionary in the next valley of the same denomination and or organization? What is the official position of the female missionaries’ denomination? Have women previously been allowed ordination due to similar circumstances. As well, what restrictions have been applied to the leadership of these women prior to this experience? Furthermore if the women are called “missionaries” but they have not previously been ordained and seemingly have not been in any kind of teaching or leadership positions what is meant by the word “missionary”. Along the same lines, what background and or qualifications do these women have and what role do these qualifications play in the ordination of ministers within their particular denomination. Lastly because we are given no indication of who is to assume the financial strain of the traveling expenses for the male missionary, I am left to my own assumptions.
Assumptions
      In this analysis I will be working under the following assumptions: First I assume that the women in question will be presiding over men although it is not stated. I will also assume that the woman seeking ordination is not against the ordination of women in general. I will also assume that all of the above mentioned characters belong to the same denomination and organization. In addition I presuppose that the phrase “take[s] time away from his duties” suggests that the additional work for the aforementioned male missionary has been to the detriment of his own congregation in some way. I sill also suppose that the field leader has had much difficulty in filling the apparently open position and that no male missionary is set to take the open position for some time. In addition, I assume that the field leader is unable to fill the position himself and that he holds the authority to ordain others to this position. I also assume that no males within the mission could affectively fill the open leadership role and certainly not to the same degree as the two female missionaries. I assume as well that only ordained ministers are allowed to administer the sacraments within this group. I assume that the proposal of ordination is not simply a reaction to the circumstances at hand and that the woman in question feels a genuine call to ministry and that she has proper qualifications. Additionally, I assume that the male missionary has had to rely (at least to some degree) on both mission communities to fund his travels. Most noticeably I will be acting under the (most likely incorrect) assumption that the seemingly egalitarian denomination in question has properly interpreted the scriptures. It is also an assumption that the ordination and leadership of women would not impede the proclamation of the gospel to these societies in any way. 
(2)  The Ethical Issues
1)      First it is clear that the so-called “fledgling church” deserves proper care.
2)      It is also clear that the objecting male missionary’s church also deserves quality care.
3)      Third it is unethical for either partly to attempt to manipulate the field director.
4)      Fourth the field director should not act out of character with neither his missionary organization, nor scriptures.
5)      Fifth I would suggest that the field director should not ordain a women if he has not been given the authority to do so within the organization.
6)      Lastly and ultimately this issue is an issue of ends and means. Is God’s apparent limitation in the roles of women in ministry held above God’s call to make disciples of all nations?  However, under the assumptions of egalitarianism this is no longer an issue.
(3)  The Alternatives
      Of course there are a number of applicable alternatives in this situation. First the leader could simply allow the man to continue coming to preach and give the sacraments. Second the male missionary could simply allow the women to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties. Third the women could be allowed to preach in more informal ways but not to give the sacraments without ordination. Fourth the leader could allow the woman to preach and to give the sacraments both without ordination. Fifth the field director could allow the woman to preach but have the male missionary come in occasionally to give the sacraments. Sixth the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until ordination for the female missionary is complete. And finally, the female missionary could simple teach from pre-prepared information provided by the male missionary on mutually agreed upon grounds.
(4)  The Norms that Have a Bearing on the Case
      Though interpretations may vary, clearly all parties involved are interested in the sharing of the Gospel message and what the Word of God has to say on this issue as the primary authority. It is also clear that everyone must be respectful of each other and attempt to understand the opposition’s opinions. Obviously nothing should be done that might result in the loss of missionaries or future missionaries or to the detriment of either of these two missionary communities. In addition, no party should be forced to act against his or her own conscience.
Also it is clear that the prohibitions applied to these women should not exceed the limits of what has already been set down either by biblical interpretation or by denominational standards.
(5)  Comparison of the Alternatives with the Norms
      1. The idea that the women could simply allow the man to continue coming to preach and give the sacraments seems to be the wrong choice based on the idea that this would be to the detriment of both missionary communities. Because of this it is not a viable option.
      2. The idea that the women could be allowed to preach in more informal ways but not to give the sacraments without ordination is clearly incorrect as this would also lead to the detriment of both missionary communities especially if the time frame for the hiring of a new male missionary became exceedingly lengthy.
      3. The idea that the field leader could allow the women to preach and to give the sacraments both without ordination also appear unethical. Most likely this is not to be in keeping with the guidelines of the denomination. As such it is disrespectful of the authorities appointed above them by God.
      4. Fourth, the idea that the field director could allow the women to preach formally but have the male missionary come in occasionally to give the sacraments also seems incorrect. Although this seems in keeping with this particular community of faiths interpretation of scripture it also includes what seems to be unnecessary financial stress on the two communities.
      5. The idea that the male missionary could simply allow the woman to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties seems quite applicable. Given the interpretive slant of this particular community, this appears a viable option. 
      6. The idea that the female missionaries could simply teach from pre-prepared information provided by the male missionary on mutually agreed upon grounds seems to be a good option for both egalitarians as well as complementariness however again the issues of financial stress as well as the detriment of both communities comes into play; as such this does not appear to be an ethical solution.
      7. Lastly there is the option whereby the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until the female missionary has completed her ordination. This also appears to be a good option.
(6)  Assessment and Consequences
      Clearly the possible ethical options and consequences of the situation depend heavily on proper interpretation of God’s Word. Again I draw attention to the assumption that the denomination in question has interpreted correctly. As such the following two options appear to be most in keeping with Christian ethics.
      Option 5: The idea that the male missionary should simply allow the women to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties:
Negatives: There would be no ordained person present to preach and or give the sacraments. While preaching by the women might be allowed, most likely this denomination would not allow an unordained person to present the sacraments. As such, this is a possible option only if the sacraments are not to be administered at all, or if there were some other denominational consensus that can allow for the dispensing of them.
Positives: The positives are quite clear. In going with this option both missionary communities will eventually have ordained ministers, lowered financial stress, and diverse theological communities that provide more options of interpretation for new converts.
      Option 7: The option whereby the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until the female missionary has completed her ordination: If there is truly an egalitarian theology present in this particular denomination and if ordination is required within the denomination as a prerequisite for preaching and for the giving of the sacraments this seems in keeping with the general theological views of this group. In addition the relatively short time frame for this type of ordination could substantially lower the amount of financial as well as over all stress and harm of the two missionary communities. 
Negatives: Most likely a certain amount of monetary concerns might remain in the short-term while transitions are being made. As well as the possibility of animosity between the two theological perspectives seems likely. Division and contentions would have to be closely monitored.
Positives: The Gospel message would be of primary importance. As well proper respect for the authority of scriptures would be upheld. As well proper respect for ones authorities within the denomination would be upheld. It is also clear that little damage could result from the short-term transition. This option would also allow for little financial strain on the communities, it would force no one to act against his or her own will or conscience. In addition the theological standard of the denomination would be upheld concerning ordination, proclamation and the administration of the sacraments. Also diversity within the Christian theological community could result in more interpretive options. This might prove especially important to the native women within these two missionary communities.
(7)  The Ethical Decision
      Clearly then Option 7 would prove to be the most ethical solution to this problem given the assumptions made in section (1).
 

Creating God?

 I came across this tired old question the other day… “IF GOD CREATED EVERYTHING THEN WHO CREATED GOD???” 

I like this question, not because of its reasoning but rather because of its importance. I find it funny how the obvious logical error is missed and how big of a deal people make of there own blunders.

One could say that time and space are interconnected and that they came into being simultaneously as time came to represent a function of measurement. This would suggest that the biblical concept that God is outside of time is a logical idea and this demonstrates a problem with the question – that being the premise that God is also measurable by time.

But more importantly is the word itself. By its very definition God is the “uncreated creator” (at least as far as the Christian community is largely concerned). And so… while the inquiry at first might sound deep, the question actually makes no sense. It is similar to asking, “How many pant legs does that T-shirt have?” Shirts do not by definition contain pant legs and God by definition does not have a creator.

This of course does not prove the existence of a God (that is in fact completely impossible just as there can never be sufficient evidence to deny the existence of a God). This counter only points out a simple flaw in logic.