BODY PARTS NEEDED: TO CONSIDER...

Ronald Reagan, while President of the United States, said “status quo is Latin for the mess we’re in”.

As Christians a great deal of the blame for the  ‘mess we’re in’, the status quo, can be laid directly at the feet of our local churches, our Pastors and in the lap of our politicians. Rev. John H.W. Stott says that our dissatisfaction with the status quo, if of sufficient consequence, ought to move us to action formulating in our minds a new vision for our society, culture and generation. Christians (Salvationists) ought to act steadily to thwart the erosion of our traditional values, to accomplish that to which we have been called, “…to save souls, to grow saints and to serve suffering humanity”. We need to return to a mindset that is concerned with sustaining traditional human values. And in moving to do so we will need to engage and team with those who don’t share our faith or values.

Many postmodern people say they believe in God, but their faith is vague and undefined. When they are asked what they believe about God, they are unable to articulate anything specific. Their non-creedal spirituality leaves them knowing little about the God we worship, adore and serve. Their spirituality passes for religion allowing a social tolerance that boggles intellectual tolerance. In the sight of God we are all equally valuable and we all have certain fundamental rights that are either God given or that we grant to one another in order to create harmonious communities.

In the postmodern world, all beliefs and belief systems are considered to be relative. We are told that there is no absolute truth; faith is simply a matter of private opinion. Consequently, one person's faith is no more valid or unique than anyone else's. 

So, how do we preach in a world that is culturally pluralistic? We do so by being aware of: 

1. The spirituality of postmodern people 

2. The uniqueness of Christianity 

3. The need to be spiritually faithful yet also socially tolerant 

The result is the postmodern belief that (1) faith is whatever a person makes it to be and (2) each person’s faith is valid, but not unique. 

When we reach out to postmodern people, we should never assume that they understand basic Christian doctrine. They’ve been bombarded with postmodern spiritual psychobabble and ‘self-actualization’ leading many to wrongly assume that all religions are the same, when in fact each religion is unique because each reflects a fundamentally different worldview. Salvationism, in this sense, along with many Christian strains, is unique among the world’s religions because in it God’s holiness and love are one. The Christian worldview teaches that we need to be spiritually grounded yet love all; to be tolerant. 

We need to be aware that Christian as well as humanist circumstances alter virtues; a precept where a quality which is admirable in one society may be seen as suppressive to another.  The ‘good will’ we as Christians intend (Emmanuel Kant) might be seen as corrupt(ed) by others; not the ‘good will’ that they would expect of us.  An extension of reason is necessary (tolerance), and it is always the extension of an area in which we can exercise responsibility.  Freedom in this regard is extended in accordance with an increased understanding. 

This is an area that many conservative Christians will find difficulty in accepting.  For us to become relevant in questions of social values (salt and light) we cannot remain blinded by out-dated teachings, notions or taboos.  No doubt many Christians today considered abortions and divorce abhorrent to their religious doctrine just 25 years ago.  Yet, today it is seen by them as a matter of choice; free will. The decisions can be made without judgment and condemnation

I believe the answer lies in our adopting both a “social tolerance” and also an “intellectual tolerance”. If a society is to continue to function it is important that the limits of the social toleration of each cultural and ethnic group is explored and acknowledged.

Those who believe in the Christian notions of God will cling to a truth (logos) that morality is defined by the very nature of God; an inherent, unchangeable quality of the universe created by God. Those who do not believe in a God will argue that social conditioning creates morality. What they term morality is in fact ethics; the current acceptable values practiced in a society (culture-religion). However, ethics, the values that bind a society to act with tolerance, are constantly changing. And as they change, compromises are enacted that further move society from what was an earlier moral compass. Often these winds of change will even effect a society’s/country’s laws, e.g., slavery, immigration policies, apartheid, euthanasia and infanticide.

We are all individuals and in the sight of God we are all equally valuable and we all have certain fundamental rights that are either God given or that we grant to one another in order to create harmonious and pleasant communities. One of these rights is the right to have privacy in some (but not all) areas of our lives. 

Life is a gift of God, but one must consider that once gifted, the life belongs to both, the Giver and the receiver. And that life is also shared, gifted, to family and friends. And it is in this sphere where we exercise our free will. The best way to return our life to the Source is by offering it to our neighbor.

The will to live is strong. Why then would some people willingly choose an early or expedient death? Or does such decisions find peace in God's perfect plan? Many will answer, ‘When it is our time to die, we will go’. Does our God given gift of our free will ever allow taking one’s own life or that of another? Is mental anguish or unceasing physical torment not sufficient forms qualifying as acceptable moral motivators? 

The basic religious disposition is that there ought to be authoritative norms. In this view, efforts to promote personal freedom must always serve a higher loyalty rather than simply clear away obstacles to self-expression. This inclines the religious person to identify with the party of established mores.

·  Does an affirmation of moral and religious authority give us the hope of something greater for ourselves?

·  Does it create conditions for a culture of responsibility and a sentiment of solidarity based on concern for the well being of others?

Does it affirm an abiding authority of moral norms that encourages building social capital?  (American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and David Campbell)

FOR REFLECTION

Societies prohibit acts like euthanasia and suicide for one or both of two reasons - protecting the individual losing his or her life, and preventing development of culture and values harmful to the society in the long run. 

The issue of organ transplantations is important and calls for profound theological reflections and discussion, so that the Church (TSA) can utter its substantial position on an all-Christian, rather than on solely parochial levels. 
 

1.     Can we exclude the possibility of a miracle as an unlikely event?

2.     Can a Godly intervention be excluded?

3.     Can the Church support the removal of organs before the definite dissolution of the interrelation between soul and body? 

4.     Who can know the moment the soul departs from the body?

5.     Should any intervention to remove the donor's organs before his/her definite death be unacceptable because it means taking away the donor's life?

6.     Is it morally acceptable if this is done for the sake of curing another person?

7.     Does the end not justify the means?

8.     Does the value of saving a life outweigh that of the life being naturally snuffed out, even if helped a bit in the process?

Medicine is faced with a dilemma and is called to proceed in deciding, if the one can ultimately build his/her life with the ruins and remnants of the other's life, ought they not rush to complete the harvest and transplantation? 

 

Is there a religious tradition that assists in answering if or what might give someone the power to ask for his/her heart to be stopped by doctors instead of letting the heart stop on its own later? 

The Church text is quite clear recommending intervention on a living being. The "Prayer in the agony of death" in the "Mikron Euchologion” includes the sentence: "Free Thy servant from this intolerable grief and his/her pursuing bitter disease, and comfort him/her among the souls of the righteous". 

 Book of Wisdom 3:1 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them.
3:2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery,
3:3 And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace…

Who will assume such a responsibility, or is it the logical assumption that man’s free will is supported by ancient church’s position and recommendation? 

When asked in an interview on 12 February to respond on the growing secularism and militant atheism characterizing Western Europe General Elect Linda Bond responded; “It’s essential that we look at our teaching resources.  The SA must make sure it has in place a program of teaching and training … we need not only to know Jesus but also to be convinced of our standing as Christians, and convinced of our mission as Salvationists.

Around 60.000 people enter SA buildings for various weekday activities in the UK; considerably more than we see in our halls on a Sunday. Ought we not to capture this opportunity in sharing those issues that concern our society and us as Christians?