What 13-letter word ending in "animous"...

These are not easy circumstances. My wife and her family faced similar decisions last year concerning her father. The easiest decision would have been to withhold nutrition, but thankfully they did not withhold.

Does our larger catechism speak to this? I think so:

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

When, according to the best medical knowledge and guidance available, death is both imminent and inevitable; and when giving nutrition or hydration would place a burden on the dying man greater than the pain and suffering it would alleviate; then--and only then--is it moral, ethical, and biblical to chose not to continue with such care. Not treatment, but care.

Oppositely, when, according to the best medical knowledge and guidance available, death is not imminent and inevitable, the withholding of basic care such as nutrition and hydration is immoral, unethical, and unbiblical.

True, establishing whether death is imminent and inevitable and whether feeding and other basic care would be burdensome to the dying patient is not easy work and rarely is carried out without second-guessing and grave doubts. Mary Lee and I just went through this as my Aunt Elaine died here in our home after living with us for the past six years. No decisions were easy and we thank God we had a Christian physician who walked the path prayerfully and biblically with us, guiding our steps fraught with the danger of becoming murderers.

Regardless of the difficulty, though, these decisions must be made--and in the light of God's Word, by faith. There is good reason to listen to, and heed, our fathers' exhortations and warnings concerning the Sixth Commandment:

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

There have always been many good reasons for the patient, his caregivers, and family members to want to violate the Sixth Commandment by "neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life." This is why the Church has unilaterally called such neglect or withdrawal "murder."

To allow a man to take an exception at this point in the Standards ought never to be allowed. Our presbytery had a man do so. Sadly, his exception was overwhelmingly approved by presbytery. By God's grace, though, the elders of one of our churches appealed to presbytery to reverse their decision, lovingly pointing out to the men of presbytery that they had endorsed "murder."

Many in presbytery were quite upset that their actions would be spoken of in this way. But, in time, the church's action bore godly fruit and the man withdrew his exception. During the process of presbytery's dealing with this matter, one of our teaching elders committed suicide. This provided a timely reminder to us all of what was at the heart of our deliberations.

Tim,

Thanks for posting this. I am not surprised that our society continues to drift this way; but it is disconcerting that the Church is drifting this way. Perhaps it is the pull of culture, perhaps our unwillingness to preach through and think through the Law (e.g. the 6th commandment), perhaps we are simply afraid.

I can say, however, that we are called as ministers of the gospel to stand with the weak, the helpless, in others words, those in need of grace. I had the privilege of presiding over a funeral and Memorial service last week of a precious two year old who suffered from cerebral palsy and passed away. Her short life was a blessing to many, and the value of her life was a testimony before the world.

"Fearful" is not the right word to describe someone who holds a different conviction than yourself. It's one thing to say that the Presbyters ought to have voted differently, and another thing to say that cowardice motivated their votes. Cowardice of what, exactly? What was the "personal cost" associated with voting in favor of this resolution?

I do agree that elders owe it to themselves (and to us, and to the world at large) to be familiar with the PCA's various position papers, so that when time comes to apply one of the positions, it's not necessary to start from scratch.

David,

Isn't there an issue here of the nature and extent of ecclesiastical (presbyterial) power? I'm thinking particularly of BCO 3 (particularly 3-4) and the fact that it goes out of its way to emphasize ecclesiastical power as "exclusively spiritual."

So I think any good Reformed Christian can fully agree with you that these kinds of things are clear violations of God's created order. But it seems to me that that in itself doesn't settle the question about how the church must address it.

Where do we draw the line? Do we need to address and condemn *every* public violation of the law of God in some sort of Presbytery motion? Why this one and not others? I probably witness a dozen things a week here on the West coast. Global genocide? Gang violence? Do I need to make each of these violations a matter of Presbyterial power? Where do we draw the line?

I enjoy your blog, but I think suggesting that anyone who might *disagree* with such a motion as 'pusillanimity' is unduly harsh. It would be like a local chapter of the Crisis Pregnancy Center calling me 'pusillanimous' because I don't attend every local pro-life rally. Do I have to be a card-carrying, gung-ho member of the CPC to *really* be pro-life?

At the risk of sounding overly pejorative, this kind of outcry and reaction have a certain air of 'moral crusading' about them that distracts from "the sole functions of the Church, as a kingdom and government distinct from the civil commonwealth."

Our state is no worse than Corinth in the first century. And yet you don't find Paul condemning *the culture* at large for sexual debauchery. What he condemns is the church for not handling the sin when it comes *into the church*! That's the point of I Cor. 5, no? That's the point of the church's 'several' power (per BCO 3-2), no?

What people continually miss is that Paul explicitly tells them, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside" (I Cor. 5:12-13a).

Don't these types of Presbyterial motions in some sense involve judging those outside the church, the very thing Paul tells the Corinthians NOT to do? That is what 'church courts' do per BCO 3-2, no? How do they exercise ecclesiastical power? "After the form of JUDGMENT, which is the power of jurisdiction."

Dear Matt,

Is not the context of "judge those outside" individual judgment? It must be, otherwise the Church could never say anything to the world and if it cannot do this, how can it show the world its sin? As always a full examination of Scripture is important. What do we do with verses such as:

Proverbs 24:11-12

"Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. 12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?"

Isaiah 58:6

"Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?"

Ephesians 5:11-12

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret."

Of course we judge the world not finally, for God will do this but the Church is to show the world its wickedness and call it to repent.

I grant you that at some point there is the danger of slipping into a gospel of morality but I do not believe that is our danger in the realm of life, at least in the realm of end-of-life issues, a voice is needed for sin is at work.

David, you asked, "Perhaps we should simply call it sinful? And not because it's a "different conviction", but because it violates the Word of God."

Yes, that seems a more appropriate tack. By their testimony, they were unprepared to speak on this issue, and that's something they ought to repent of and correct. Leave it at that, without supposing that you know better than they what the real reason for their decision was.

"Was the Apostle Paul wrong in stating the Judaizers' real reason?"

Well, that Paul was pretty angular. He'd have to soften up nowadays, or I bet he'd have a hard time holding down a pastorate in the PCA...

Seriously, though, a few questions about the judgment/condemnation of these Heritage Presbytery men (not actions, men) :

1) are you judging their heart motives/condition?

2) if so, why do you say that they are succumbing to pusillanimity instead of a secret hatred of the disabled (for example)? Because the former is a more charitable guess? Because it is more statistically likely given the large number of such pusillanimous compromises and the unlikelihood of diabolical intent?

3) was Paul guessing, or did he have infallible knowledge of the Judaizers's motives, or something in between?

Blessings,

Keith

Dr. Jones worked on the PCA document, and he said that they did intensive medical study to find out all the implications of giving food and water at certain points of treatment. The reason the document speaks of food and water the way it does is that there are circumstances where food can be painful, water can be painful, etc. I don't know all the details, but I remember in ethics class that Dr. Jones said it was one of those issues that was very difficult to figure out and that the report represents their best attempt to theologize responsibly given the medical facts as they understood them.

Thanks for the pointer to the Vatican document. Here we have a situation where the denomination has taken position A and you're disappointed in a presbytery for not opposing position A. The course of action is obvious, given the PCA's rules - try to get the denomination to re-examine its position paper on the issues where you find them deficient. In other words, submit an overture at your next presbytery meeting to petition the GA on this issue. As for the substance of the matter, I'll check out the Vatican document and compare; I always meant to go back and look into that issue in more depth.

As for the criticism that the man in question was a Covenant grad, the denomination's official school can hardly be blamed for teaching the denomination's official position, can it? Especially when the denomination's official professor of ethics wrote it.

>>As for the criticism that the man in question was a Covenant grad, the denomination's official school can hardly be blamed for teaching the denomination's official position, can it? Especially when the denomination's official professor of ethics wrote it.

Well, if church councils are the final authority, no. But if we still adhere to sola Scriptura, yes.