The following article by Dr Chiara Bertoglio, first appears appeared on MercatoroNet and is republished here, under a Creative Commons licence.
Sixsmith and Paul Rowan Brian have published a very interesting piece in Public Discourse and MercatorNet identifying “apatheists” as the most dangerous enemies of believers today. Christians and people belonging to other major creeds are “theists”, that is, believers in a divine Being, a God, a Theos in Greek. A-theists are those who profess that there is no divine Being, and no supernatural entity. “Apatheists” is a brilliant neologism which describes the increasingly common stance of those who don’t care whether or not God exists.
In Western societies, apatheists make up a substantial part of the population. We are all familiar with people who seem to be perfectly indifferent to the greatest questions of humankind, to that primaeval call to philosophy which is an integral component of what it means to be human. People who are reluctant to be drawn into meaningful conversation about transcendent topics, and whose greatest contribution to the reasoning on first things is shoulder-shrugging.
I fully share the article’s thesis and viewpoint and am grateful to its author for articulating them clearly and compellingly. To this, I would add a further reflection, provoked both by this article and by my recent reading of a beautiful book by and about Dietrich von Hildebrand (My Battle Against Hitler). Hildebrand contrasts the concept of community with that of mass. Writing during the horrible years of Nazism (and when Bolshevism was proving itself equally destructive and dehumanizing), Hildebrand was careful to distinguish between the alienated masses, whose rationality and free will were seemingly obliterated by totalitarianism and the positive power of communitas – of communities such as family and church.
In most Western countries, the feeling of community is thinning at worrisome speed. Families are shrinking numerically, both as to the number of families and the number of their members. Many of them dissolve quickly, with new bonds multiplying up to the point that – as I once heard a child telling somebody in a train – one can have eight grandparents (!). When families become so fluid they evaporate, and the strength they should contribute to society is lost.
Most people don’t attend church; and – speaking from the viewpoint I know best – even among practising believers it is only infrequently that one knows the other members of the congregation by name, let alone anything meaningful about them and their lives. We pray side by side, but I frequently doubt whether we really pray “together”, much less if we pray “as one”.
One of the many advantages of thriving and flourishing communities is that they work as supporting forces when one is in need, but also as networks protecting and promoting shared values. I’m perfectly aware that “social control” may degenerate into bigotry, and may create a world of “don’ts” and “can’ts” which can suffocate the initiative which ought to flourish in a healthy society. But if a community is really sane, it will tolerate the proper amount of novelty, and even a salutary drop of folly, at the same time exercising a positive check on those disruptive forces which undermine the community’s wellbeing.
This is not an altogether original idea. The American sociologist Robert Putnam has documented the erosion of social capital in his famous book Bowling Alone. Americans were no longer joining community organisations and were less engaged in politics; they were no longer a nation of volunteers. He thought that the engine for the change was technology. Television, increasing commuting time and the internet were making people more and more individualistic. And socially disconnected individuals are unhappier, less healthy, poorer and more prone to crime. Civic disengagement, he found, is toxic for civil society.
Today’s society, both in the dilution of its social bonds, and in the modern principle that individuals have the right of defining not only their identity but their gender, how and when to end their lives, their right to parenthood and so on, makes it almost compulsory not to care about what the other is doing. I think that most people are deeply disturbed by, say, the selling of human beings which characterizes commercial surrogacy, or feel ill at ease with protocols promoting gender “transitioning” for children and teenagers; but it is politically incorrect to voice these feelings, it is socially dangerous, and it is best to confine oneself simply to an “apatheist” attitude.
We don’t feel that our fellow citizens belong to the same society as us; we don’t think that to promote erroneous values, wrong beliefs and dangerous practices is something which endangers our own lives, our own present and future wellbeing, and the society we are building for the generations to come.
By losing the feeling of the small community, we have lost the possibility of caring for society as a whole. If we feel strongly about our family, if we perceive its unity as a body, it will be a solid brick which will contribute to the building of the common house. If we are pulverized, atomized, if our society is simply a casual collection of non-caring people, then we are as grains of sand, which nobody will be able to build anything with, except perhaps the most fragile of sandcastles.
We must learn to care again, to know our neighbours and to be concerned for them; to voice our worries for our society, to promote those values which are positive for making it healthy; we must make our social bonds solid, strong and powerful if we value communities as the habitat where humanity can flourish.
Dr Chiara Bertoglio is a musician and theologian moonlighting as a journalist. She writes from Italy. Visit her website.
The following article by Michael Cook, Editor of BioEdge, appeared in their 12 July 2018 newsletter and is republished here, with his permission.
Every year, about 1.5 million cases of euthanasia take place in the United States. Does this have a negative impact on healthcare workers? Sorry, about 1.5 million cases of cat and dog euthanasia take place. But the question is still relevant. Veterinarians, veterinary assistants and shelter workers experience great stress at having to put animals down.
The emotional connection between the work of human doctors and animal doctors is closer than you might think. Owners often react to a pet’s death with the intensity of grief which appears equivalent to the loss of a beloved relative.
So the moral stress which vets experience is relevant. Suicide amongst vets has been the topic of several studies. “Veterinarians are four times more likely than members of the general population and two times more likely than other health professionals to die by suicide,” according to a 2012 study in the journal of The American Association of Suicidology, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour.
Why? Performing euthanasia day in, day out, also appears to make some vets less able to resist the temptation to commit suicide. The authors of the 2012 study found that “… all else being equal, veterinarians may be more likely than members of other professions to enact a lethal attempt when they desire suicide because their exposure to euthanasia has rendered them less fearful of death.”
Aren’t there lessons in these finding which are relevant to doctors who euthanize their patients? Sometimes doctors in Belgium or the Netherlands are quoted as saying that the death they helped was beautiful or peaceful. Could that be bravado masking their own nonchalance about human death?
How many times have we all heard the argument, “You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this…” Its logic is that if the suffering of animals and humans is essentially the same, they both should be released from suffering in the same way. But if the animal-human parallel works for the patient, why not for the doctor? If we allow euthanasia, surely we can expect the same burn-out rates and the same suicide rates as veterinarians … at least the same. That should scare us all – especially the doctors who will be responsible.
Rev Stuart Lange, NZCN Interim National Director, presented our oral submission to the Justice Select Committee on the End of Life Choice Bill on 21 May, 2018. Maxim Institute was also among the list of nine submitters in the afternoon session and shared the link to the video of the session.
I recommend watching the video simply to gain an appreciation of how citizens and organisations can participate in the shape of the laws that govern our nation. The afternoon session was 2h 45 min long but you can use the guide below to find specific submissions.
Simply click on the video to play it, then drag the slider to the desired start time. Time and name of group or person making their submission
6:50 Motor Neurone Disease Association of New Zealand
21:50 End of Life Choice NZ
51:30 Cordon Copeland
1:03:00 Centre for Science and Citizenship Trust 1:22:00 NZ Christian Network 1:38:30 Maxim Institute
1:56:00 Remote New Zealand Mission Project (teleconference)
2:09:20 Conservative Party NZ
2:20:20 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (Paula Tesoriero – NZ Disability Rights Commissioner)
On both sides of the Tasman, in both public and social media, debate has been raging for several weeks about rugby star Israel Folau’s answer to the question,
…what was gods plan for gay people??
with
HELL… Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God.
Many commentators have expressed outrage, accusing Folau of hatred, bigotry, and homophobia. Others have been shocked by the intense anger, hostility and intolerance expressed towards Folau, and have worried about our society in relation to the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
Against that backdrop, some 21 reflections:
Note: these reflections do not necessarily reflect the views of the NZCN, or of all New Zealand churches, or of NZ Christians as a whole. This is an opinion piece.
1
Folau was not expressing hatred, but his belief based on the Bible
2
For most Christians, obeying the Bible is very important to them, because they see the Bible as the Word of God
3
It might have been better if Folau had answered something like “It is God’s plan that everyone should turn to God, and be forgiven and find new life through Christ”, and had left it at that
4
Repentance and hell are part of what the Bible teaches, but are not necessarily the best place to begin a conversation
5
God does not hate people. The Bible teaches that God loves human beings so much that he sent his only Son to die for us.
1 John 4:9 Romans 5:8 John 3:16
6
With regard to sexuality, the Bible teaches that we are created male and female, in God’s own image
7
The Bible teaches, and Jesus affirms, that God’s intention for human sexual relationships is loving faithful marriage between one man and one woman, and that all sexual relations outside of that context fall short of God’s intentions
8
The Bible does not quite say what Folau said, but he was correct in understanding that the Bible does not endorse homosexual relationships
9
The Bible does not single out homosexual relationships as the only sin, but as one sin among many others – and most sins mentioned in the Bible have nothing to do with sexual behaviour, but include such things as unbelief, blasphemy, idolatry, pride, drunkenness, temper, greed, injustice, and violence
Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexual behaviour, because everyone in Jewish society knew it was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament law. But in working among Gentiles, the apostle Paul addressed the issue several times, because homosexual behaviour was common in Graeco-Roman society
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Romans 1:24-27
11
The Bible does not say anything about sexual orientation, but only about sexual behaviour, and sexual orientation in itself should not be regarded as sinful
12
Sexual fulfilment in marriage is one of God’s good gifts to humanity, but it is possible – and very common – for people of any age or orientation to live a life of celibate singleness, and some of them likewise see that as a calling and a gift from God
13
There is no biblical basis for cruelty, name-calling, prejudice, or hating anyone, and Christians who have done such things should repent of it
14
In general, Christians do not hate people with a gay lifestyle, but simply disagree with them on that
15
Christians are called to love everyone, but to love people we do not need unconditionally to accept everything they think, say, or do
Matthew 22:37-39 Galatians 6:10 1 John 4:11
16
To disagree with something as a matter of religious moral conscience is not the same as active discrimination
17
An ambivalence about same-sex relationships is not some unusual view of a tiny majority, but is held by a great many people and cultures around the world, and until a couple of decades ago it was mainstream in western societies too, and it remains mainstream in some cultural minorities who are very much part of New Zealand society
18
Some Christians in New Zealand see accepting gay relationships as reflecting biblical imperatives of love and justice, and thus put aside the specific Bible teachings about sexual morality – but that does not appear to be the majority view
19
Christians need to recognise the reality that the societal moves to normalise gay identity and relationships have become widely accepted, and are pervasively reinforced in public and social discourse, and that various anti-discriminatory measures are now enshrined in law
20
Christians should express their convictions wisely, sensitively, and respectfully, and with grace, in a way which reflects Christ and the Bible, and which avoids anything that can be misunderstood as “hate”
James 3:17 1 Peter 3:15-16 Colossians 4:6
21
Our society, media and law-makers need to be very careful that in New Zealand the cause of tolerance does not become dangerously intolerant, that freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not curtailed, and that the wider freedoms of society are not tragically diminished
As news of Rev. Dr. Billy Graham’s passing at 99 years of age spread through the world today, the Christian community said goodbye to the one who helped defined the Christian message of the past few decades, more than any other. Bp Efraim Tendero, Secretary General of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), noted: “No one has more defined the essence of evangelical faith than Dr. Graham. He was God’s gift and instrument to the growth and development of today’s evangelical movement.”
He reportedly preached face to face to some 100 million people in his many public meetings since the middle of the past century. He gave focus and definition to what it meant to be born again in Christ and to what He calls us to in giving witness to the love and message of Jesus.
During his time, Dr. Graham was the voice of evangelicals, a community of Christians that grew from 90 million in the early 1960s to 600 million today. During his global travels, his prophetic and pastoral presence were trusted. His clear biblical message and deeply regarded leadership gave evangelicals a voice, an identity and clear vision. Not only did his preaching reach into millions of people, but his vision and energy translated into the lives of generations of leaders.
Throughout his life, he also had a deep interest in the world of the WEA. In 1968, at a time when the WEA needed added impetus he stepped in and provided resources for the relaunch and internationalization of the work.
WEA leaders were heavily engaged in the Lausanne Congress in 1974, where Graham and John Stott called 2,500 church leaders together in Lausanne, Switzerland, and there reshaped the evangelical witness, calling Christians to move away from just seeing the Gospel as an inward work of grace but to view ministry and calling to the world in all its need. The Lausanne Covenant became a theological and missional backdrop against which ministry was carried out. A legacy of enormous importance.
The week after the Congress ended, Dr. Graham took time to attend the WEA General Assembly nearby at Chateau d’Oex. Throughout his long ministry he continued to give much encouragement to the WEA and each of the national alliances to ensure that the results of his evangelistic efforts would be shepherded into the church, which the WEA is devoted to work with.
Living for almost a century, he had said, “I’ll preach until there is no breath left in my body. I was called by God, and until God tells me to retire, I cannot. Whatever strength I have, whatever time God lets me have, is going to be dedicated to doing the work of an evangelist, as long as I live.”
His ministry befits one who has been cited as one of the most liked persons of his generation. Avoiding political affiliation, his ministry drew together Christians from all communities. His humility, an earmark of his life, not only enabled people of all sides to join in common witness, but the clarity of his message never wavered. His faithfulness to the cross of Christ, its centrality in life and death, was an invitation for millions to accept the payment of sin and to live a Christ-centered life.
Dr. Graham’s passing leaves a vacuum that inevitably will be filled as the Spirit raises up new leadership for these coming generations.
NZ Christian Network is advising everyone who is concerned about euthanasia being legalised in New Zealand to make sure that they send a submission to the Justice Select Committee. This matter is now very time-sensitive: Submissions to the Select Committee have been extended and close at midnight Tuesday 6 March 2018.