That said, here are a few common questions:
1. Does this mean no killing at all?
The old King James Version translated this commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." This has prompted some people to either embrace the most literal interpretation interpretation of the KJV's translation, or dismiss it as unworkable. So, is God saying that we should not kill anyone or anything for any reason at all? Should we kill animals for food? Is does this mean that no Christian should ever serve in the armed forces or an armed section of the police?Philip Ryken writes:
...the sixth commandment forbids is the unjust taking of a legally innocent life. It applies to “murder in cold blood, manslaughter with passionate rage, [and] negligent homicide resulting from recklessness or carelessness.” Perhaps the best translation is, “You shall not kill unlawfully.” God’s people have always recognized that there are some situations where taking a life is not only permitted but actually warranted. One such situation is self-defense, the protection of one’s self and one’s family from violent attack. To extend the principle, we may also kill in the defense of our nation... The Bible teaches that it is not unlawful to kill enemies in wartime, provided that the war is just..
2. But what about war?
The Bible itself does not lay out the criteria to clearly define what a just war is, but over the centuries many Christian theologians have agreed that:
1. Last Resort
A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort.
2. Legitimate Authority
A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government.
3. Just Cause
A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound.
4. Probability of Success
In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause.
5. Right Intention
The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice.
6. Proportionality
The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary.
7. Civilian Casualties
The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unaviodable victims of a military attack on a strategic target.
As a result, Christians have served in the military with a good conscience, even if they have had to use deadly force to prevent an enemy from causing far greater loss of life.
3. But what about the death penalty?
The death penalty is a controversial subject, mainly because of the terrible risk of a miscarriage of justice. As a result, Bible believing Christians have been divided about whether or not to advocate for the reintroduction of the death penalty. After all, people have been convicted of murder and many years later new evidence has been discovered that proved their innocence. If accused had been jailed, he may have lost years of his life, but he has not lost his life itself. If the accused had received capital punishment it is too late to say sorry. Advocating that the Bible authorises the death penalty, Philip Ryken writes:Another situation where killing is lawful is the execution of a death sentence. It is always wrong for us to take the law into our own hands. If justice is to be done, the plaintiff may not serve as the jury, the judge, and the executioner. This is what Moses did when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster (see Exod. 2:11–15), and it was wrong. However, the Bible makes a distinction between private individuals and the state. Capital punishment—when it is justly administered by the governing authorities—is one lawful form of killing. For a public official “to kill an offender is not murder, but justice.”5 This is taught not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. Paul told the Romans, who were then under imperial authority, that the government “does not bear the sword for nothing” because the one who governs “is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4b). Although it is always wrong to avenge ourselves (see Rom. 12:19), the government has a God-given responsibility of vengeance... The execution of a murderer stops him from killing again and deters other would-be criminals from doing the same. His execution is also a matter of justice. The Bible says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6). This is the Biblical logic behind capital punishment.
All of the historic miscarriages of justice failed because the courts ignored the Bible's limitations on the applying the death penalty. Deut. 17:6 says, "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." Applied to the modern world we live in, this would mean that DNA or even finger print evidence would not be sufficient by themselves to lead to the application of the death penalty. At least two human eyewitnesses of the murder itself would be required. Deut. 19:16–19 gives an even greater restriction: “If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.” In other words, if two or three witnesses lied about witnessing the murder, knowing that their lie would lead to the death penalty for the accused, then they would receive the death penalty themselves.
Even with these restrictions, in good conscience some Bible believing Christians still stand against the death penalty, as long term jail sentences such as our courts impose was never an option in the ancient world.
Nevertheless, most Bible believing Christians believe that the state is "God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:4.) As a result, God has given the state authority to raise up and arm a police force and an army and authorise them use deadly force under the government's accountability in order for them to service justice and protect the vulnerable.
4. But what about abortion?
Britain is missing 8 million people aged about 50 and under. There are 8 million people who could have been born in this country, yet were not because their mums decided to have an abortion after it was legalised in 1967. Certainly some of these mothers were facing certain death themselves, or their child was. Others were victims of rape or incest, others had chronic medical problems or complex genetic risks. The tragedy is that this was only true for a minority of the mothers deciding to end the life of their unborn child. The legalisation of abortion in 1967 created a culture of legitimacy that has made abortion just one option that facilitated the sexual revolution. The life of the most vulnerable of all was so cheapened that to some, abortion is now merely another form of contraception.
This may be a particularly painful subject for you to read about if you have had an abortion yourself. Perhaps you still are racked with feelings of shame, loss and guilt, so remember that you have not committed an unforgivable sin. King David made decisions that lead directly to the murder of a close friend (Uriah the Hittite), so he could cover up his adultery with Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. That in turn lead directly to the death of the child that was connived, and David clearly felt the weight of his guilt when the baby died. Nevertheless, David still found forgiveness from God. See 2 Sam. 11-12, Ps. 51 and Ps. 32.
How should we respond to abortion? Well, outside of an extraordinary action of God, we are unlikely to see the repeal of the 1967 abortion act, but we can work with Christian organisations and others who would like to see further restrictions on abortions. For example, we should be lobbying Parliament to restrict abortions to below 16 weeks, like most other countries in Europe. We should also be urging government to make the NHS offer counselling and support for alternatives such as adoption and we should especially be supporting Christian counselling agencies that are both trying to offer these alternatives and offering love, support and forgiveness for women who now regret their abortions.
5. But what about euthanasia?
Throughout the ages neither Christians nor most non-Christians have advocated suicide or assisted suicide. We all recognise that there are somethings that people don't have a right to choose, and one of those is to end one's life. That said, we now live in a complicated part of history. We can all rejoice in the advances that have brought long life to so many people, and alleviated the suffering of so many others. The huge leaps forward we have seen the medical industry make have been astonishing and are a cause for us to praise God for. However, they have also brought new dilemmas that were no other age has had to struggle with. Medical technology can now breath for someone, pump their blood for them and feed them. All the usual symptoms of death can be overcome by machines.
Now patients and their next of kin have to make important decisions. Should treatment be accepted or refused? Should a life support machine be turned off or kept going?
Philip Ryken writes:
.. Christians... have a duty to oppose euthanasia. God alone is the Lord of life, and he alone has the right to determine when it is time for someone to die. The difficulty is that we now have the medical capacity to keep a body functioning long after that time has come. This raises many more ethical questions than we can address here. But briefly, although we always have a duty to provide basic nourishment, we do not always have a duty to provide extraordinary measures like artificial respiration. There is a legitimate moral distinction between killing and allowing someone who is terminally ill to die. In other words, there is a difference between terminating life—which is never permissible—and terminating treatment—which can be a way of turning life (and thus also death) back over to God. But this calls for constant vigilance, because many people (including many health professionals) don’t know the difference, and thus they often cross the line that should never be crossed. [Emphasis added].In most of these difficult end of life medical situations, it is impossible to force general principles that will address all of the problems, however keep these in mind: Pray about it, seek advice and act with compassion and hope.
Philip Graham Ryken quotes from Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word; ed. R. Kent Hughes; Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005)
No comments:
Post a Comment