In school we talked about euthanasia and whether or not it was moral to kill people in either extreme pain, a vegetative state, or those who have a debilitating disease that will ultimately kill them or rob them of their functions. I have heard stories of people "waking up" after years, even decades, of being in a coma or living in a vegetated condition. Abortion came into the discussion as well, and I couldn't help but wonder where God was in all of this.

Hi!  Thanks for the question!

This is a great question.  But it's extremely hard to write about this with the nuance that is needed to avoid misunderstanding.  So it would be best if you could come to me and talk about this.

The short answer is that it is not moral to kill people who are in extreme pain, in a vegetative state, or in the midst of a debilitating disease that robs them of their functions such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

However, I think that there are two things that are going on here.  First, there is the question about the morality of killing or assisting in the death of someone who's quality of life is very low or dwindling rapidly.  Then there is the question, "Where is God in all of this?"

Is it moral to kill or assist in the death of someone who's life is very low or dwindling rapidly

Though it is terribly dry and heady, the PCA's position paper on the use of heroic measures is quite helpful.  You can find it here.  In it, it outlines the biblical commitments that we have to preserving life and dignity.  The section that I found particularly helpful is copied below.

A second principle is that life is not be abandoned simply on account of suffering. Endurance as well as service finds its place among the purposes which God has for our lives in which He is glorified. This task is vividly set before us in Jesus' words to Peter following his resurrection. 

• I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, 'Follow me!' (Jn. 21:18-19).

We are not told in the Bible how this prophecy was fulfilled, so we cannot be certain as to its precise meaning. But it appears that Peter in his old age was to suffer some loss of independence, self-determination, and mobility before his death. This situation no less than his active apostleship was for the glory of God, and Peter once again receives the call to discipleship; "Follow me!" The clear implication is that we should consider the time and manner of our death as an opportunity to glorify God as followers of Christ to the end (Cf. 1 Pet. 2:21). Avoidance of suffering or dependence upon others are insufficient in themselves as legitimate motives for hastening the hour of one's death. Yet, there is no reason to believe that extraordinary means that extend life only by increasing suffering and dependence are always to be chosen as means of glorifying God.

In short, the prospect of suffering or death is insufficient to hasten death through active means.  On the other side of this, there is the question of withholding measures that keep someone alive (ex. taking someone off life support).  Since that was not the question, use the link to the position paper to get a feel for how decisions are made in those situations.

Where is God in all of this?

I think that when we bump against hard issues like end-of-life scenarios, we often ask, "Where is God?".  This is natural.  Sin is not the way that God intended things to be.  We live in a fallen world that constantly makes us think, "It shouldn't be like this! GAH!".  Romans 8:22 says that the creation "groans" because of the curse of sin.  A previous blog post, which has been moved to Derrick's site, is helpful for parts of our reaction to the overall not-so-pleasantness of these topics: http://www.askburb.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-constantly-pray.html

The answer to the question is that God really does care.  He cared so much that he sent his son for us.  Think about it.  We have disease, aches, pains, conflict, distress, etc., etc., etc.  We live in the muck and mud of a world that is broken, and that curse afflicts us all the time.  God does not live in that world.  He lives in the perfection, glory, riches, and awesomeness of heaven.  Yet, his heart was so moved for his people and his creation that he left all of the comforts of heaven to be with us in the muck and mud.  He became one of us for many reasons: so that he could be our substitute (to bear the penalty for our sin), so that we would know that he understood us, so that we could see how he dealt with hard things, especially the suffering that pervades this world.  He cared so much that he willingly went to the cross to suffer and die that we might be restored to relationships with him.  Imagine just how much Jesus suffered when his heavenly father turned his face away, forsook his son whom he had a perfect relationship with, and poured his wrath out upon him.  Indeed, he went to the cross that we might share in his inheritance, that when he comes again, we might be glorified with him.

Thus, our hope is not in or of this world.  Our hope is not that we will have a cushy life or deal with the effects of the curse or our sin.  No, our hope is in Jesus.  Our hope is in the promise that he will return. (Acts 1:11, Revelation)  Our hope is that God will come back and make all things new.  Our hope is that he will restore things to the way that they were meant to be.  Our hopes is that he will wipe every tear from our eyes, that there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, and that we will be made whole. (Revelation 21:4)

So where is God in the sinfulness of taking life, either at the beginning or the end, in the disease and death, and in the suffering?  God is right there in the midst of it, working to bring about the restoration of all things.  He has plopped himself right smack in the middle of it to deal with it.  And deal with it he has through Jesus.  Now we haven't seen the complete fulfillment of it all, but we can rest assured that that time is coming.  The Father paid for us and his creation with the blood of his very own son.  Do you think he's going to just leave us to wallow in the muck and mud of this world?

So persevere.  We face hard things in this life, but we have a hope that puts suffering, even terrible suffering into perspective.  We have something awesome coming.

Love you in God's way!

blessings,

~Frank

During Mr. Young's talks, he spoke about denying science and stuff. I talked to a friend who goes to a more liberal church, and he told me about how evolution isn't incompatible with the Bible. I actually felt like it made a lot more sense in my opinion. I understand that as Christians we will have unpopular beliefs, but I don't see any reason that we should deny science. What do you think about all of this?

That is a really important question. For those of you who weren't in Sunday School this past year, this question stemmed from apologetics series that we did with the Young's last year. In fact, Mr. Young did not say we should deny science. He explicitly said the opposite. If you want to hear his full argument, it comes early in his curriculum on the origins of matter, and the recording is on the Harvest website. You can find the audio here. It's the August 19 talk.

In that class he noted that it is fashionable for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to assert that “religion is at war with science.” Mr. Young warned us not to take sides in that argument because the choice between religion and science is a false choice (It's setting up things as mutually exclusive when they are not.). Instead, he said the real choice or tension is between "good science and good theology" – both of which strive to understand the truth – and "bad science and bad theology" – which both work to protect a prejudice. Unfortunately, what your friend said is not true. Evolution, as we understand it (bacteria to apes to people), is incompatible with the Bible. However the major theme across the three weeks that Mr. Young spent on origins is that if you look at the three theories on the origin of matter (Big Bang, Biochemical Predestination, and Evolution) from a purely natural framework/viewpoint/paradigm then evolution is also incompatible with proven science.

When he talked about good and bad science and theology Mr. Young said bad theology opposes good science when it asserts something God never said in order to try to support some other point. Basically bad theology puts words in God's mouth. He cited the example of the medieval Catholic claiming that the Earth was the center of the solar system in order to show man was special. That was bad science built on an assertion that is not found in the Bible. On the other side, Mr. Young said bad science usually contradicts good theology when it refuses to acknowledge something God did–assuming away the supernatural explanation, even when no purely natural alternative makes sense.

Because truth is truth, Mr. Young noted that when bad science contradicts good theology it will also contradict good science. That was the point of this section: that a purely natural or secular account of creation is bad science because the three base theories each contradict at least one known scientific law. Since a purely secular account of creation claims to be science and it disagrees with proven science then it is self-contradictory. So the choice is not between scriptural teaching and science, but rather between bad science and good science. Because truth is truth, good science will be consistent with our theology.

He noted several specific examples of the "good science–bad science" tension. Regarding the creation of matter he noted, for example, that the Big Bang Theory holds that the entire universe was once compressed in a single sub-atomic particle. If the estimated 200 million billion stars and solar systems were compressed in a particle that was smaller than an atom that particle would have had infinite mass and infinite gravity. General Relativity tells us that time does not pass in an infinite gravitational field. Stephen Hawking took this law and applied it to the Big Bang Theory. If time is not passing for the particle, and the particle encompasses the universe, then time in general could not pass (Time is bounded by the universe. By definition, where the universe ends, time ends.). Hawking puts it this way: Time did not exist at that point. In his classic book, The Short History of Time, he demonstrated that time was created by the Big Bang.

If the Big Bang happened the way that scientists now claim – and Mr. Young did not take a position on that– the fact that time was not passing until it happened could only be logical if the Big Bang was triggered by a creator who is outside of time, and who controls time. But the secular view says that there is no supernatural being outside of time. The secular view says the Big Bang – the event that science proves created time - was a natural event. It is an axiom of all physical science that no event can occur when no time passes. So an event occurring to create time is, by definition, impossible. So a purely secular view contradicts proven science.

Mr. Young noted that Dr. Hawking, an avowed atheist, tried to solve that problem his discovery created by coining the term “singularity” - an event that could not happen more than a single time because it is impossible, and so to occur even once it had to violate the laws of nature. Mr. Young noted that a “singularity” – an event that violates the laws of nature – has the same characteristics as a “miracle”, with one exception. That exception is that good theology can explain the cause of a miracle, by recognizing a God who is outside of time and nature and is in control of both. In contrast, a purely secular view cannot explain what causes a singularity, nor how the laws of nature can be broken from inside the laws of nature.

Ultimately, the purely secular view of the origins of matter asserts that four things must have happened, none of which can be explained, and two of which violate laws of nature. Mr. Young concluded that a belief in un-caused causes that violate natural laws may be superstition – but it is certainly not good science. He ended the lecture by reviewing the things that we know to be scientifically true about origins of matter and noting that, while none of them can be explained rationally through a purely natural view, all of them are easily explained when we acknowledge a creator who is outside of time and nature and sovereign over both. In other words, he demonstrated that good science and good theology said the same thing.

Thanks for the question!! Come talk to me or drop me another question if you want to talk more. Love you in God's way!

blessings,
~Frank