Never offline, always in reach, we now wield in our hands a magic wand of technological power we have only begun to grasp. But it raises new enigmas, too. Never more connected, we seem to be growing more distant. Never more efficient, we have never been more distracted.
Tony Reinke, author of 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You
Are you using your phone, or is your phone using you?
Can you put it down?
Can you turn it off?
Denzel Washington, actor
These were the blunt rhetorical questions asked by Denzel Washington in a recent interview with BBC television. “I’m not knocking the phone,” the actor reiterated. “We have to at least ask ourselves — around the world — what is [the smartphone] doing to us?”
Our smartphone addictions have led us to a rather odd cultural moment.
For teenagers, the endless need to gain approval and popularity, once largely isolated to the school day, has lost its boundaries. With never-ending social feeds, teens now never escape the pressures of peer approval. But the challenges persist for all demographics. Content fatigue is setting in for many, especially exhaustion from political tensions. Loneliness seems as unabated as ever, as friendships among middle-aged men have dropped to epic lows, generating a whole demographic of men who find themselves socially dislocated and isolated.
One journalist recently opened an article with this thought experiment: “Try to pinpoint the last time you took a purposeless walk through the late spring breeze, when there was no itch in your hand to reach for a mobile device, and you felt like the wind and sky around you had nothing to disclose to you other than the vast and mysterious sympathy of existence itself. Was it 2007? Or as far back as 1997? Does just asking the question make you feel ill?”
Smartphone Habits, Gospel Opportunities
But it was not until a missionary friend in the Middle East explained to me how my book was being used in her neighborhood, as a bridge into the gospel with Muslim friends, that it first dawned on me just how extensively the anxieties of the digital age reach around the globe, and how they force all of us to reckon with deeper questions of life, beyond the physical consequences.
If research tells us that a tsunami of digital distractions are crashing into our lives, we need situational wisdom to answer three spiritual questions: Why are we lured to these distractions? What is a distraction in the first place? And perhaps the most foundational question of them all: What is the undistracted life?
Simply by asking the deeper questions, Christians can move the conversation this deep, this fast.
I see twelve ways that our phones are changing us, and — more importantly — twelve ways that Scripture presses us deeper, moving us from cultural concerns to the eternal issues that hang in the balance. So, here are twelve cues you can use to move your conversations about phone abuse toward the gospel.
1. We Get Addicted to Distraction
Our phones are a candy bowl of sugar-hits whenever we want them, and it’s impossible to be offline for any amount of time without feeling the anxiety of withdrawal. But hidden under these hyper-palatable distractions is the billion-dollar question that people across the world would love to get answered: What is the undistracted life? The answer is carefully explained by Paul in one chapter of Scripture (1 Corinthians 7).
2. We Ignore Our Flesh and Blood
We ignore our neighbors, and we ignore people around us. We text and drive and endanger others on the road. We attend parties and spend our time gazing at a 4-inch screen. Our phones push us to evade the limits of embodiment, to live in the cognitive and ethereal realm of a virtual world. But Scripture exhorts us to celebrate the countercultural beauty of the flesh-and-blood church. And Jesus labors to show us that our neighbor is anyone who shares the same place as us (Luke 10:25–37).
3. We Crave Immediate Approval
Smartphones put us in instant contact with friends, family, and strangers. We can see and be seen right now. We publish a picture and refresh our feeds to see who is watching and approving. But this craving for human approval kills faith (John 12:42–43). Yet we find it so hard to put our phones away. We fear one another, and we want admiration from one another, so we cultivate an inordinate desire for human approval through our social media platforms. For those of us who struggle here, Jesus’s warning is very clear: “Whoever loves [his social network] more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). Scripture reminds us over and over again of the supreme value of our approval before God and what’s at stake when we forget this.
4. We Lose Our Literacy
Smartphone abuse doesn’t make us il-literate, it makes us a-literate. We grow lazy with our literacy and powers of concentration. Christians are a “people of the book,” but Scripture is now for most of us, the oldest, and longest, and most complex book we will ever seriously encounter in our lives. The daunting nature of Scripture puts a premium on serious literacy. Jesus’s most common rebuke is a stinging question: “Have you not read?” To not have read means to not have comprehend Scripture, and this is to be in a dire place of spiritual hardening. We see that true, eternal literacy is a supernatural gift of seeing invisible glory.
5. We Feed on the Produced
Our phones condition us to assume that the buffet-like offering of new digital media will never end. With such an offering, our necks crane down, and we grow blind to the created beauties around us. Scripture tells us to stop, look up, and see God’s raw power and presence — in the splendor of nature and in the grace of the people around us — and to let divine gratitude swell in worship of him (Romans 1:18–23).
6. We Become Like What We “Like”
Or more accurately, we become what we most love, and whatever we most love is offered to us on our phones. We are porous beings. Whatever we focus our attention on is the thing we are becoming. We are surrounded by images of bodies we cannot resemble and luxuries we cannot afford. Yet our desired self-projection slowly morphs who we are. We become what we are most attracted to, a profound mystery. Instead, Scripture beckons us to behold the transforming glory of Jesus Christ, and to find our transformation in his image. Either our idols shape us into their own dead image (Romans 1:18–27; Psalm 115:4–8; 135:15–18), or Christ shapes us into his glorious image (Romans 12:1–2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10). This is Anthropology 101.
7. We Get Lonely
Smartphones tempt us toward unhealthy isolation and a creepy voyeuristic enjoyment of looking at others from behind the safety and secrecy of a screen. We want to connect, but we also want the safety of our phones to buffer us from others and to broker our relationships. Technology makes relationships cleaner and easier. Or so we think. But Scripture commands us to focus our attention on those who are least likely to appear in our feeds: the needy, the poor, the elderly, and the cognitively disabled.
8. We Get Comfortable in Secret Vices
Online anonymity is an illusion, but behind the fake veil we indulge in forbidden fruit, like pornography, a poisoned apple that destroys our spiritual appetite. Scripture calls for the utmost vigilance in protecting the desires of our hearts, through radical self-discipline in the face of virtual sin that feeds our sinful imagination. “If your eye causes you to sin . . .” — that’s a warning for us to reclaim today (Matthew 18:9; Mark 9:47).
9. We Lose Meaning
Viral videos, breaking news, snaps, and texts all grab for our immediate attention on the fast-moving surface of social media. But Scripture calls us to seek wisdom by earnestly clawing for it like a treasure hidden underground, invisible to skimming eyes scrolling down a screen of ephemeral bytes (Proverbs 2:1–15).
10. We Fear Missing Out
Of all our digital fears, the pain of getting left out seems to cut the deepest. As if it is some unwritten contract we signed, we believe that we will never miss out, as long as we enslave our attention to our phones. We pull down to refresh. And do it again. But Scripture tells us of a place none of us has seen, where everything we’ve ever missed out on in this life will be replaced and restored forever (Acts 3:21).
11. We Become Harsh to One Another
Gossip has always been a favorite pastime of sinners envious of one another. But now we can text and snap rumors or incriminating photos and evidence. On a crystal screen, slinging dirt seems so easy, so hygienic, so sanitary. Scripture helps us to realistically see the sinfulness of man — to see all the dirt and baggage we carry around ourselves — and then helps us to show grace and mercy toward one another. Contrary to the impulses of online outrage, we are called to cultivate a heart of gentle patience as we bear with one another’s weaknesses and shortcomings (Ephesians 4:2).
12. We Lose Our Place in Time
Our attention span is shattered into 9-second bursts, as we struggle to manage the waterfall of texts, snaps, photos, breaking news prompts, and new and weird and crazy and scandalous things. Conditioned to think that what is most important is what’s happening online right now, we can concentrate on nothing. Our digital ADD makes us lose our sense of place in the world. But Scripture reveals to us a cosmic, universal storyline that roots our existence in something bigger than the immediacy of our feeds. The word “remember” occurs about 400 times in the Bible, and there’s a precious rooting of ourselves in history — in God’s story — that we must have to flourish in this life.
Flourishing in “Never-Offline” Culture
All of Denzel Washington’s questions point to the emerging anxieties of our “never-offline” culture — faced by those in our hometowns, our neighborhoods, and in places all around the world. And these smartphone questions open new doors into a labyrinth of eternal questions.
Yes, we’re all being digitally distracted to death (and we welcome it). And yes, all the studies say that we need less screen time (but we really don’t want to hear that). As we humble ourselves and learn the art of digital self-control, we can speak into our generation with pointed insight into the purpose of our lives and what it means to flourish in the digital age — undistracted with eternal purpose in view.
With Scripture in hand, Christians are positioned to pick up the conversation where the culture can go no deeper in the search for answers, and we can move the discussion forward into ultimate realities and eternal possibilities. And that means moving the conversation from the digital offerings of our shiny new devices to the eternal offerings of our gracious Savior.
To this end, endless opportunities are in front of us.
The following article came to our attention via MercatorNet , which stands for reframing ethical and policy debates in terms of human dignity, not dollars and cents or political calculation. They specialise in navigating modern complexities with a focus on human dignity and the family. Cardus Law is a research body that is particularly interested the role of religious freedom in sustaining an ordered society where citizens’ faith informs a vibrant public debate and where the public and private expression of religious faith helps to shape our common life.
By Andrew Bennett, program director for Cardus Law, Canada
In a truly pluralist democracy, acceptance of difference must include the right to hold different theological and different ethical and moral positions even when they go against the prevailing spirit of our age. So long as these views are held and advanced peacefully and do not advocate physical violence that would violate human dignity, they must be allowed to inhabit the public space.
We must reject an illiberal totalitarianism that seeks to establish socially correct and acceptable beliefs treating any peacefully held contrary view as deviant and something to be silenced. There must be no totalitarianism of accepted belief or accepted opinion in our country.
It is not by sheer accident that freedom of religion or conscience appears as the first fundamental freedom in s. 2a of the Charter. If a citizen does not enjoy the foundational freedom to live and exercise religious beliefs both publicly and privately, and to have this freedom vigorously defended by all of our institutions, then we cannot build a truly pluralist and diverse society where difference is viewed in a positive light.
A true pluralism must embrace and enable difference, but not simply a subset of differences that may be permitted and emboldened by a given set of elites at a given moment in our history. This is an illiberal pluralism that embraces a closed secularism where the state imposes values and dictates what religious beliefs are publicly permissible.
To paraphrase a prominent Catholic bishop:
Democracy has many merits, but it does not determine the truth.
The freedom to practice one’s deeply held religious faith both publicly and privately is a freedom that implicitly advances and supports this true pluralism by protecting and continually upholding difference. To champion religious freedom is also to implicitly accept that there are those in our common life who will hold and will promote beliefs, theological and philosophical, moral, and ethical, that many of us will vehemently reject. And that’s okay. It is the proper role of the State to ensure that no one religious belief system, or for that matter a secular belief system, dictates what one must believe and what one must do.
All faith communities along with political and ideological communities must commit to inhabiting the public space in peace. They must commit to engage in activities that have as their ultimate goal the promotion of human flourishing, recognition of human dignity, and an acceptance of different beliefs co-existing in the public square.
Freedom of religion or conscience is essential in the development and defence of a diverse society where human beings are able to flourish and have their dignity acknowledged. How then does religious freedom reveal human dignity? Freedom of religion relates directly to the metaphysical need of every human being to freely contemplate and adhere to beliefs that answer these questions: “Who am I? Who am I in relationship to you? Who am I in relationship to the country and world in which I live? And, who am I in relationship to God, or to a particular philosophy to which I choose to adhere?”
It can be argued that these questions define the relationship between religious freedom and human dignity. If our concept of freedom is purely one of economic, social, and/or political freedom divorced from this existential freedom then our participation in society will be frustrated. How we understand ourselves in a metaphysical sense cannot be divorced from our political, social, and economic selves. Indeed, in most of the world religious faith defines political, social, and economic action. All of these freedoms speak to human freedom itself and its defence so as to enable human flourishing.
If Muslims, Christians, Sikhs or Jews…are constrained in living out their faith through practice, they will become increasingly marginalised and our society will be increasingly atomised. The marginalisation of people of faith and the diverse beliefs they profess can have two consequences, both of which hamper the further strengthening of our common life:
Firstly, such a marginalisation impoverishes our public debate by pushing out valuable perspectives drawn from deep wells of religious tradition. In so doing, people who profess these traditions will view themselves as being undervalued within our political life, and the religious beliefs they deeply hold as being unworthy of public consideration. Their ability to full exercise their citizenship is diminished as a result.
Secondly, as people of faith and their communities feel increasingly vulnerable and believe that they can no longer participate in the common life due to unreasonable constraints placed upon their faith and conscience, they may choose to check out of mainstream society altogether. While this may allow them to live their faith and support their faith-based institutions more-or-less independently, it represents a grave loss to our common life and is essentially a failure of our political society to embrace these citizens.
The State that acknowledges and respects religious freedom as being intrinsically linked to human dignity is a State that upholds true religious freedom. It respects the sovereignty of religious bodies and faith communities to exercise faith freely and in good conscience in both public and private lives. Likewise members of all faith communities must respect the values of our liberal democratic society, in particular, the rule of law exercised by the state insomuch as those laws are just, do not counter the moral law, and are ordered towards the common good and the flourishing of all members of society.
A true pluralism respects disagreement, often profound disagreement, between people of different faiths, ideologies, and backgrounds. In building our common life we must seek to build a society in which people flourish and are able to live their lives of faithfully, both publicly and privately. In building this common life there must be the space to differ and not to defer, to have the freedom to live a public faith and not be driven to privatise one’s faith in order to be accepted in the public square.
A liberal democracy needs to be strong enough in its embrace of the rule of law, freedom, and human rights to guarantee that religious differences and differences in belief more generally – differences that often have sharp edges – can exist.
A liberal democracy protects and opens wide the public square for these disagreements to exist. The public square also beckons us, calling us to meet each other there, in our differences and our diversity, and to there encounter our shared humanity in solidarity with one another.
Andrew Bennett is Senior Fellow at Cardus and program director for Cardus Law. Reproduced with permission from Convivium.
Convivium means living together. It is an online space that brings together citizens of differing convictions and religious confessions to contend for the role of faith in our common life.
What’s the difference between Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide?
Euthanasia is an intervention undertaken with the intention of ending a life to relieve suffering, for example, a lethal injection administered by a doctor
Assisted suicide is any act that intentionally helps another person kill themselves, for example by providing them with the means to do so, most commonly by prescribing a lethal medication
When David Seymour’s bill was drawn, National and Whanganui MP Chester Borrows said he was firmly against it [the bill].
We have a horrific record on suicide and I think it sends a message that sometimes it is okay to top yourself. And I disagree with that.
Economic Development Minister Simon Bridges said he was likely to vote against it, but may vote for it to go to a select committee so it could be properly debated. “Ultimately life is sacred and I think there are … ‘thin edge of the wedge’ arguments that concern me.”
What will that debate look like? The world has progressed since Maryan Street’s ‘End-of-Life Choice Bill’ was dropped. Views have changed and euthanasia laws in other countries have evolved over the past four years. Here’s a quick look at recent articles in the media if you want to consider the trajectory euthanasia laws have taken.
Did you read the first article in the list? Here are are some of the key points that need highlighting:
The Dutch are complacent about their famous law, he says. But there is no room for complacency. Under current legislation, euthanasia is only legal if a doctor believes that three conditions have been met: (1) the request must be voluntary and deliberate; (2) there must be unbearable suffering with no hope of improvement; and (3) there must no reasonable alternative to euthanasia. However, as euthanasia has sunk its roots deeper and deeper into Dutch medicine, the second and third conditions have shrivelled up. Patients define what is unbearable and they define what is a reasonable alternative. Unhappiness can be unbearable and a nursing home may not be a reasonable alternative. So, as one ethicist has observed, requirements (2) and (3) “add little to the requirement of a voluntary and thoughtful request”. Autonomy has trumped medicine. As a result, the number of euthanasia cases roughly tripled between 2007 and 2016, from 2000 to 6000.
One sign of the changing times is the rapid expansion of the services of the End of Life Clinic Foundation (Stichting Levenseindekliniek). This organisation offers euthanasia to patients whose own doctors have refused. They never offer to treat the underlying illness, whether it is physical or mental.
Last year, Dr Chabot points out, doctors from the End of Life Clinic each performed about one euthanasia every month. “What happens to doctors for whom a deadly injection becomes a monthly routine?” he asks. Now the End of Life Clinic is recruiting psychiatrists to service the mentally ill and demented. One obvious problem is that there is a shortage of good psychiatric help in the Netherland – which tends to take a long time have an effect, in any case – because of budget cuts.
Dr Chabot is deeply sceptical about euthanasia for the demented: “we are dealing with a morally problematic act: how do you kill someone who does not understand that he will be killed?” How? It turns out that sometimes a relative or doctor secretly laces their food or drink with a sedative to make it easier to give them a lethal injection. In one notorious case last year, the sedative didn’t work and relatives pinned the terrified woman to the bed while the doctor gave the lethal injection. Dr Chabot was astonished to discover that “surreptitious administration of medication has previously occurred, but has never been mentioned in an annual report.” Isn’t anyone paying attention to these developments, Dr Chabot asks.
Euthanasia is presented as a solution for those who are suffering unbearable pain, by allowing them to exercise their right to take their own life and not be forced to live with their current or progressing condition.
Is depression a medical condition?
Here’s what the New Zealand Ministry of Health says,
Depression is a mental illness.. [it] can range from being a mild illness, to a severe one – where you can lose interest in life and the things you used to enjoy.
Suicidal thoughts are a key symptom of depression.
What’s Euthanasia? Asking someone else [a physician] to intervene and take your life because you are unable to do so yourself.
“… a rose. By any other name, would smell as sweet.” ~ Romeo and Juliet, Act II Scene II
Are there other solutions to this problem?
We need to stop victimising people facing ‘unbearable pain’ or ‘extenuating circumstances’ and reach out in love. Think differently. Look for alternative solutions and, if you can’t find one, make one!
Did you catch the story in Stuff that came out the day after the bill was pulled from the ballot?
John Darnley says the first time he rolled down the street with Avis on the front of his bike, she loved it. Photo: Kevin Stent / Fairfax Media
“There was a time when visitors would come for miles just to chat with Avis Darnley.
But as Parkinson’s disease has melted away the muscles in her jaw and throat, left her in a wheelchair and stolen her ability to speak, life has got smaller.
Most days she was left with just her front room, her television, and husband John.
Until John decided it was time they both got on with living.”
John and Avis Darnley’s story demonstrates that there can be creative solutions to improving one’s quality of life.
Hospice New Zealand does not support a change in the law to legalise assisted dying in any form. Nor do we consider that a change in the law would be in the best interests of the people we care for.
We believe Government should be investing in palliative care, increasing access to care and support not legalising euthanasia. Only when all New Zealanders have ready access to expert end-of-life care can a balanced debate begin. We support that all New Zealanders have the right to choose where they die.
The Nathaniel Centre played an instrumental role in the previous attempt to legalise Euthanasia in New Zealand.
It goes without saying that Family First will play a very public role in this debate, and that Maxim Institute to provide well-researched information for the country to consider.
David Seymour’s private member’s bill is based on an illusion. It assumes that it’s possible to create safeguards around assisted suicide practices that can prevent wrongful deaths. However, international evidence has shown that there is no reliably safe way to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Need more clarification around the euthanasia debate?
Check out this resource by John Kleinsman
Examples of actions which are not euthanasia are often used to argue for law change which is euthanasia. This brief article aims to clarify some of the terms and issues in the hope that we can prevent this from happening.
Andy and I aren’t qualified marriage counsellors, but we invest a lot of our time coaching couples in trouble. We love seeing couples grow back together again. However, last year, after many hours with one couple, the husband made a comment that made us realise it was not going to end well. He said, “I just don’t trust her”.
He wasn’t talking about his wife being unfaithful. Over the course of their married life together he’d felt betrayed time and time again until his trust had been eroded to the point that he felt his heart wasn’t safe with her.
I wanted to know when he had first started shutting his heart down to her, and what had occurred to make him do so, but he couldn’t tell me. Sadly, in this case, they didn’t make it.
Trustworthiness is essential in marriage. Our hearts have to feel safe with one another, don’t they?
John Gottman, relationship ‘master’, believes that in marriage, we’re all quietly asking the same questions:
Can I trust you to respect me?
Can I trust you to do what you say you’ll do?
Can I trust you to keep my confidence?
Can I trust you to work hard for our family?
Can I trust you to choose me over your friends?
Can I trust you to be financially faithful?
Can I trust you to help around the house – to help with the kids?
Can I trust you not to cheat on me – to be sexually faithful?
Can I trust you not to use my weaknesses against me?
So how do we build trust so that our hearts remain open and we feel safe?
Gottman, says trust is built in the small interactions of everyday life; when we choose to ‘turn towards’ our spouse in daily moments.
Every time a couple interacts they have a choice to either ‘turn toward’ or ‘turn away’ from their spouse. Each time a couple ‘turns toward’ they are building trust.
Let me give you a personal example from my own life.
We had some friends coming over for dinner and I was enjoying preparing them a special meal. Andy was in the study working on the computer, and I knew he was waiting on some blood results and was worried. As I headed into the study to get my recipe book I heard Andy groan “Uh oh”.
I remember in that split second thinking, “I really don’t want to deal with your health issues right now. Maybe I could just pretend I didn’t hear that and just sneak back down to the kitchen.”
But because I work at FamilyLife and travel around NZ teaching this stuff :), I checked my attitude. You see, I knew in that moment, I had a choice to either turn towards Andy, or turn away.
I walked into the study, put my arm around his shoulder and asked, “Tell me the bad news.” I was so glad I did because in that very moment Andy needed my support and reassurance. He needed to know that, once again, I will be there for him and that he can trust me with whatever “uh oh’s” come our way.
Can I encourage you, rather than turn away from your partner in those small difficult moments, instead choose to ‘turn toward’. It will build trustworthiness in marriage which is an antidote to conflict and foundational to healthy happy marriages that last.
Nikki
Help for Today. Hope for Tomorrow – visit FAMILYLIFE NZ
‘A church that doesn’t have disabled people in it, is a disabled church,’ says Di Willis, director of Elevate Disability Trust. Di describes herself as ‘very ordinary’, but it’s been an extraordinary life—among extraordinary people.
by Ingrid Barratt (c) ‘War Cry’ magazine, 11 February 2017, pages 6-9
You can read ‘War Cry’ on their website, at your nearest Salvation Army church or centre, or subscribe through Salvationist Resources
Clive was a young man with severe cerebral palsy. One day he announced that he wanted to preach. Di Willis is honest that she thought, ‘My goodness, no one will be able to understand him.’ However, Elevate advocated for him to be given an opportunity to preach, with an interpreter translating for the congregation. ‘You could hear a pin drop, it was so powerful,’ recalls Di. From that day, an unlikely but gifted preacher was born.
This is a lesson for the church, points out Di. When we assume that people with disabilities cannot have the same spiritual giftings we do, we not only short-change them, but we debilitate the body of Christ.
This is also true of people with intellectual disabilities. ‘They may be intellectually disabled, but they are not spiritually disabled,’ reflects Di. ‘Jesus said we have to be like small children to come to him. People with intellectual disabilities have that pure faith, and they wake the church up.’
Plus, they can get away with things we would never get away with, laughs Di. She points to a church in Taupo that is proactive in including disabled people in its ministries. ‘A group of intellectually disabled people have the task of taking the offering. They will come and stand beside you until you put something in the bag or tell them to go away. We could never get away with that!’ It’s a light-hearted perspective on a profound issue: that God uses the weak things of the world to confound the wise.
Sowing the seeds
When I ask Di where she got her passion for people with disabilities, she simply answers, ‘God.’ Yet, as so often happens, God was planting the seeds from the very beginning.
‘I was tested when I was about nine because I was failing school,’ explains Di. ‘They found I was slightly slow in my learning. So I was sent to a special school as a boarder. I had a year of crying the whole time, I was so homesick.’ Yet, looking back, Di realises the school gave her a love of people with disabilities.
It’s not surprising, then, that when Di left school she became an occupational therapist. But it wasn’t until she came to New Zealand from the United Kingdom ‘on an adventure’ that her life changed forever.
‘I was very social and got drunk a lot, and it was a turbulent time,’ remembers Di. ‘I had a real void within, and deep down, I really wanted to know God. A friend invited me to go to the Billy Graham crusade. Well, my friend didn’t end up coming, but I went along and I had an amazing conversion. I was completely changed.’
At the time, she was working at Middlemore Hospital where she was inspired by Bev, a tetraplegic woman who was a Christian. ‘God showed me there should be a ministry for people with disabilities, both Christian and non-Christian,’ says Di.
The idea kept playing in the back of her mind as she got married and began a family. One day, Di decided to pick up the phone and call Bev, who had recently left hospital after two years and was struggling to adjust, as well as look after her three children. Di said, ‘I want to bring people with disabilities to your place.’
Her friend replied that just that morning, she had prayed to God, ‘Lord, only bring the people to my place that you want to be there.’ And so, a ministry was born.
Revelation and revival
Another friend, Margie, who has cerebral palsy, also helped begin the ministry. Margie went to America to be healed by a famous healing evangelist, but came back devastated that she had not been healed. ‘We were there helping her pick up the pieces,’ says Di.
But out of that experience, Margie went to Bible College where God appeared to her in an awe-inspiring vision: ‘She saw Jesus on a white horse, just like in Revelation, and he gave her an enormous vision of the work he wanted to do with disabled people.
‘We were overawed and didn’t have a clue what to do. We had to really trust God—and whenever the Lord showed us things, we did it. We got criticised to the nth degree for not having this or that, but we just did it. The Lord was so faithful to us, and it just grew and grew and loads of people became Christians. It was a revival really.’
One of their dreams was to hold a Christian camp for people with disabilities, and they nervously booked a venue for 26 people. Forty years later, Elevate’s national camps attract between 300-400 people, with branches throughout the country.
Among its many ministries, Elevate oversees ‘Christian Fellowship for the Disabled’ for people with mainly physical disabilities, ‘Joy Ministries’ for people with intellectual disabilities, ‘Torch Outreach’ for the blind or visually impaired, and ‘Emmanuel Support’ for families of children with disabilities, as well as an Auckland-based drop-in centre brimming with people daily.
Part of the body
‘I sometimes say that if the Church was really doing its job, we wouldn’t need this ministry at all,’ says Di—although she has also seen first-hand that Elevate allows people to be completely accepted, without having to explain themselves or fight to fit in.
Still, the aim of Elevate is to see people with disabilities not merely surviving in churches, but thriving. Di admits there is still discrimination—although she hesitates to use the word —against people with disabilities.
Although many churches have good intentions, there are subtle barriers: ‘I have a bee in my bonnet about churches where there is a stage and no ramp up to it. It’s assuming that people who use a wheelchair, crutches or a walker don’t have anything to offer up the front,’ says Di. ‘It’s great if you have a back entrance for the disabled; it’s even better if they can come in the front like everyone else.’
Di shocked the vicar of a traditional church when she suggested they cut a pew in half, so that a person in a wheelchair could sit in the middle of the church, next to friends and family—instead of right down the back or right up the front. Yet, there are also many churches that have showed enormous imagination. ‘There was a boy in a wheelchair who wanted to go to youth group, but their youth room was upstairs. So they changed the location, and started meeting downstairs, and he knew he belonged,’ remembers Di.
Part of her job is to advocate for people so they can go to the church they choose, and be full participants in its ministries. Intellectually-disabled people are great door greeters. Other people with physical disabilities may be prayers, encouragers, preachers and teachers.
Churches have to do some work to include people with disabilities—such as a roster for those needing transport or getting some advice around setting boundaries for people with intellectual disabilities. ‘I love it when a minister rings me and says, “I have someone in my church with a disability and I need some help.” I think, ‘Good on you!’
Elevate can help with practical tips for encouraging and involving people with disabilities. Ultimately, though, ‘it’s your attitude and heart that’s really important,’ says Di.
The bottom line is that people with disabilities have a lot to offer the Church through their own unique giftings. ‘You don’t have to have a ministry to the disabled, you just need to include people with disabilities in your ministries,’ sums up Di.
More than ordinary
Last year, Di was given an Unsung Hero ‘Missional Living’ Award by the New Zealand Christian Network, for her tireless work over 40 years. ‘It was such a great thing for the ministry. I’m just a very ordinary person, so God gets the glory,’ she says.
I can’t help but argue that Di is not entirely ordinary. If Elevate shows us anything, it’s that in God’s Kingdom, everyone is extraordinary. And God, who is able, can do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine (Ephesians 3:20).
Need help? |Elevate can help you find practical ways to include people with disabilities in your church
Get involved | You can volunteer with Elevate through prayer support, lending a hand at one of their camps, being a friend, donating and more. Go to elevatecdt.org.nz
A law professor defends physicians’ right to conscientious objection
By Professor Michael Quinlan, 18 May 2017
As abortion, euthanasia and other controversial procedures become more widespread, conscientious objection for healthcare workers is becoming a flashpoint for controversy throughout the Western world. Some doctors and ethicists have argued that conscientious objection itself is unethical because doctors are required to fulfil any legal request that their patients make.
MercatorNet interviewed Professor Michael Quinlan, dean of the law school at the Sydney campus of the University of Notre Dame Australia, about this contentious issue. He has just published an article on the situation in Australian jurisdictions.
MercatorNet: Opponents of conscientious objection complain that patients could suffer if doctors refuse to provide a service. But how about doctors? Do they suffer if they cannot live consistently with their consciences?
Michael Quinlan: Yes, they do and in a number of ways. Some doctors faced with provisions which prevent them from living consistently with their conscience will retire or move to a State which does respect conscience. Not all doctors will be in a financial position to take those steps, so some will comply with the law – after all generally speaking we expect citizens, and especially professionals, to comply with the law.
Just as there is growing evidence of what is called “moral distress” being experienced by ex-servicemen and women, so there is growing evidence that health practitioners who act against their conscience can suffer from “moral distress.”
This is not just a bad feeling. Moral distress can adversely impact on self-respect, self-esteem, patient care and job satisfaction. Feelings of helplessness, frustration, guilt, sorrow and anxiety can manifest in physical and mental illness. Moral distress can cause burnout and early retirement from the profession. It can also lead to desensitising of one’s conscience and to increased risk of doctors developing indifference to patients and a weakening of their ability make ethical decisions.
Most discussions of conscientious objection to abortion frame it as a moral judgement on the procedure. But isn’t it also possible to see it as bad medicine – the wrong answer to a woman’s distress?
There is certainly evidence that some women do suffer adversely from induced abortions. Symptoms can include depression, low self-esteem, self-destructive behaviours, relationship difficulties, substance abuse, suicidal ideation and anxiety. Such symptoms are not confined to women who undergo late term terminations and emerge after short or long periods of time have elapsed.
Reardon, Coleman and Short’s study of medical evidence from half a million women in Denmark found significantly higher mortality rates within one to ten years of woman who have had early or late abortions. Women should be informed of these medical risks but they should also be given real alternatives to consider and those alternatives – material and medical – should be real.
Nobody likes “conscience clauses”. Those who appeal to them resent being treated as an exception; those who oppose them think they are unfair. Do conscience clauses have a future or will they become narrower and narrower and fade away?
I don’t know that it is true to say that nobody likes “conscience clauses.” Conscience protections are actually not all that uncommon in Australia. Parliamentarians in the major political parties at least enjoy conscience votes in issues such as abortion. Federal law and the laws of most states and territories provide privilege from disclosure of confidential religious confessions. Conscientious objectors to military service are protected from conscription in the Commonwealth Defence Act.
The law protects those whose religious beliefs prevent them from voting at all or from voting in an election if it is held on a particular day of the week from fines for failing to vote. The Australian Cricket Board was able to accommodate the religious objections of a Muslim player to having to wear a uniform promoting alcohol. The Canterbury-Bankstown Rugby League club was willing (at least until recently) to accommodate the religious objections of one of its star players to playing football on a Sunday. Medical professionals of conscience need to be clear on their position and make their voices heard – in their professional organisations – but also in the public square.
Conscientious objection must have some limits. Can a Jehovah Witness doctor refuse to do blood tranfusions? Or a Muslim doctor refuse to examine women?
In a multi-faith, multi-racial and multi-cultural pluralist country like Australia I think that it is generally reasonable to accommodate positions held by medical professionals – and other citizens – as much as possible. Some issues may be able to be accommodated in some but not other circumstances.
Perhaps in a large public hospital with sufficient staff it might be possible for patients to be well cared for without requiring a doctor who has a conscientious objection to blood transfusions or to examining particular patients to be accommodated. Of course there do need to be some limits on conscientious objection. As Professor Iain Benson has observed “[a]ny legal regime is necessarily involved in line drawing and there is nothing inherently offensive about that.”
Some have argued that if doctors object to performing legal procedures, they should find another job as a plumber or child care worker? How would you respond?
Those who make this argument tend to ignore the fact that we do live in a multi-faith, multi-racial and pluralist society. Just as there are some doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion, so too are there patients who have such an objection. Patients have a right to obtain medical treatment from doctors who understand their religious worldview and who share that viewpoint.
Policies and legislative provisions that discourage “pro-life” doctors from joining or remaining in the profession may deprive patients from access to the services of health practitioners who share their views about the value of embryonic human life. Some patients would never countenance the termination of a pregnancy no matter the risks to their own physical health or no matter the physical or other challenges that their child might face. Such women who do not want to feel pressured into termination because their unborn child might be a Downs syndrome child or be pressured into a “selective reduction” if they are carrying twins.
Such patients want their doctors to support them in their decisions and to give them and their children whole hearted and supportive medical care. Provisions which force doctors out of the profession act to reduce – not to increase – patient choice.
What are the weak points in the armour of resolutely secular thinkers who argue that doctors should perform all legally requested procedures?
This sort of argument actually tends only to be made in relation to abortion services. Elective surgery is not normally something that doctors must do. So, for example, many paediatric doctors refuse to perform circumcisions on baby boys. Essentially these arguments seek to put patient autonomy as a governing principle and to assert that doctors owe obligations to society because society gives them something of a monopoly.
When you think about it, though, no one seems to argue that doctors must subjugate their own interests entirely to those of their patients. No one argues that doctors must carry out every legal operation a patient requests or that they must provide every legal medication that a patient requests.
We expect – we want – we need – doctors to be ethical people who are not driven solely by profit. We need doctors to refuse to carry out medical procedures which might earn them money but which they think would not be best for their patient’s health and wellbeing. We don’t expect and we don’t actually want our doctors to give us antibiotics that we don’t actually need. We want them to tell us what they think is actually in our best interests even though our Google inspired medical view conflicts with theirs.
We don’t expect doctors to subordinate their interests to those of their patients generally. We don’t expect them to work for free or to make house calls or never to take holidays at their patient’s request. Those who want all doctors to provide abortion services must be honest in their arguments. If they want to argue that all doctors must provide abortion services – but not other medical services – they must explain what exactly makes abortion different and overcome the powerful arguments against such compulsion.
This article by Professor Michael Quinlan was originally published on MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons Licence. If you enjoy this article, visit MercatorNet.com for more or click here to read the article on their site.
Professor Michael Quinlan is Dean of the School of Law, Sydney at The University of Notre Dame Australia.
Tony Reinke, senior writer for Desiring God and author of 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You (2017), John Newton on the Christian Life (2015), and Lit! A Christian Guide to Reading Books (2011).
