Expert: Scott Talbot - 5/19/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hi Scott

In considering and asking about some of the more difficult questions concerning Christian living (eg. moral dilemmas for which there do not seem to be any sinless alternatives), I find myself confronted with the 'absolutist' school of thought which teaches that God's directives such as contained in the Ten Commandments for example, are totally absolute; as opposed to the 'situational' school of thought which relies more on the nature of the circumstances in order to determine morality.

Because of my belief in the infinite nature of God and trust in His thinking as opposed to mine, I have been firmly in the 'absolutist' camp. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to live with.

I saw a documentary recently about two conjoined babies who, because of the nature of their medical condition, would shortly die if they were not surgically separated.

The tragedy of their situation was that only one would survive the surgery because of shared vital structures that could not be divided up between the two.

The doctors had to make a judgement about which twin was the stronger and most able to handle the surgery. During the operation, they put a clamp on the blood supply of the weaker twin and thereby effectively murdered it. In doing so however, they were enabled to save the stronger one.

While such situations are mercifully rare, they confront me concerning the absolutist view of morality. As I understand it, it is God's will for everyone to live abundant lives and to come to a saving knowledge of Him.

In this case the doctors facilitated God's will for one twin and possibly frustrated it as concerns the other. I do not believe for a second that it was God's will for both twins to die a slow and agonizing death over many days as there is no suggestion in Scripture, that God wills anything of that kind on anyone, let alone innocent new borns.

It seems to me that those doctors did the best they could, even though it was necessary to deliberately kill an innocent human being (ie. commit murder) in the process.

What do you think?

I note from the Bible, that the institution of marriage between one man and one woman was ordained at creation as one of the most fundamental of all divine directives - and yet God has demonstrated 'flexibility' concerning it.

He did this in Old Testament times, by tolerating the marriage of many wives per man as a better alternative than a society awash with unattached females (as would have been the case at the time, if not for the acceptance of polygamy).

If God can adopt a flexible attitude regarding the institution of marriage because of extenuating circumstances (ie. a gross oversupply of females), I am inclined to think He accepts that those doctors did indeed do the best they could for those twins and do not deserve condemnation, even though a deliberate killing at their hands, took place.

Am I out of line with Scripture here? What do you think?

Richard



ANSWER: Hi Richard,

You raise some interesting points. Let's take a look at them one at a time.

You say you are an "absolutist" when it comes to God's laws. When God says that something is wrong, it's wrong. No set of circumstances could ever make it right.

One of God's laws is that we should not commit murder. That command is pretty clear.

In the example you gave, you stated that the doctors murdered one of the twins. Did they?

You indicated that they would both die shortly if nothing were done. So, had nothing been done, there would have been two deaths. But, because the doctors intervened, they ended up saving a life. I would not call this murder.

What is the principle behind God's command? It's a respect for life. As the doctors considered what was best in this situation, they showed respect for life by saving one of the babies.

Let me address your example of marriage and polygamy. You use this as an analogy to imply that perhaps even God Himself uses situation ethics, or may sometimes compromise His own laws. (Did I read you correctly on that?)

You are correct in stating that God established the pattern for marriage between one man and one woman. Then you go on to say that He demonstrated flexibility. I disagree.

You go on to explain what you think to be the reason for God's flexibility--that society was awash with unattached females.

First, I think that the explanation (an overabundance of females) is mere speculation. And second, I don't think God ever condoned polygamy. In other words, He never abandoned His original principles of marriage.

Some assume that, since polygamy was so rampant (even among some very prominent individuals), and God did nothing about it, that this implied that He accepted it. This is faulty reasoning. We have all done things that escape condemnation or negative consequences, at least in the short term. Just because nothing was said or done, this does not mean that God approves of it.

So let's go back to your absolutism. God created marriage, and He designed it to be a union between one man and one woman. Period.

Does that help? I know these things can get a little sticky sometimes. Feel free to write back if you would like to discuss further.

Scott

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Scott

Thank you so much for your prompt reply.

Yes indeed - there are some sticky situations for which a 'right' or 'correct' response seems elusive.

Re the definition of murder and whether or not the doctors 'murdered' in this case. If murder is simply defined as the deliberate taking of innocent life, then indeed they murdered.

If there is a more sophisticated definition of murder that takes such complex situations into account, then I guess we need to tease out what it is.

The word 'murder' is also an emotive one and usually implies underlying motives such as hatred, greed, revenge and so on, which of course do not apply in this case.

However, the lack of negative motives also applies in other cases where for example, a spouse 'murders' her partner because he or she is terminally ill, will soon die anyway, who has lost their mind and suffers such constant agony as to make life unbearable.

It also applies to a number of other situations.

I heard a story once about a man trapped in flaming wreck with no hope of rescue. He was quickly 'murdered' by his friend, so as to save him from the horror of burning alive.

In war time too, these types of situations arise. I visited Papua New Guinea recently and heard a number of stories about Australian soldiers who either killed their seriously wounded comrades or who killed themselves when wounded, so as to avoid the horrific torture that the Japanese army visited upon any wounded who were captured alive.

Is the killing that takes place in all these situations OK, on the grounds that the victims are going to die shortly anyway, and because the act of killing them will save them terrible horror?

I heard another story once about a shipwreck so sudden, that no rescue signal was sent. The one lifeboat that survived, was so overloaded that it could not be made mobile.

Everyone on board was going to die from exposure because it was impossible to get the boat moving enough, to reach safety.

The senior officer on board then threw the worst injured and least able overboard to drown, so that he could get the boat going and save those who remained. He was successful in this, but was later charged with murder.

Nevertheless, his situation was very similar to the doctors who killed the weaker twin. Everyone was going to die if nothing was done. Some were saved - the price being the death of the weaker ones.

How does God view this officer's actions? He seems to be in the same situation as the doctors mentioned earlier.

If the killing of the weaker conjoined twin in the medical example I gave is OK, it would seem that it should be OK in the other examples as well, because of the many parallels that exist between them.

What do you think?

Re the issue of polygamy in the Old Testament - I do not think for a minute that God thought it was good. I do think that for whatever reason, He tolerated it.

This appears obvious given the prominence of some of the individuals who practiced it, along with the complete lack of sanction or even comment about the issue one way or the other.

Polygamy has the flavor of being the norm at the time, while other transgressions such as murder for example, seem never to escape condemnation.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of deliberate, unrepentant homosexuality. The practice of polygamy was just as entrenched and 'unrepented' of; but does not even attract a mention or query about its validity. One has to wonder how this can be, if it is a sin of similar magnitude?

I am not trying to be provocative here. I just need to understand.

Regards

Richard

ANSWER: Hi Richard,

The examples you gave about euthenasia and mercy killing aren't quite the same. These situations did not involve the sparing of another life as a result.

The example about the officer and the shipwreck survivors ... I think that what he did was both difficult and noble. He made a decision that resulted in the rescue of many lives. I cannot imagine his being condemned for murder. This was heroic, and displayed strong leadership. This is my opinion.

About polygamy. Yes, God tolerated it. He tolerates a lot of things. His toleration and lack of comment do not in any way imply that it's any less acceptable in His eyes.

Some sins are less harmful to others. For example, having a sexual fantasy is less consequential than raping a woman (which is why one is not imprisoned for mere lust). But, in God's eyes, both sins are equally offensive. The sin of polygamy may not have been as consequential as homosexuality. Still, I'm sure it's equally wrong to God.

I think you're getting sucked into a quagmire of speculation that may never serve any useful purpose for you. You may never be faced with such a dilemma as having to decide whether or not someone will die. If you are, then you determine what God's values are, ask for wisdom, and make the best decision you can. Does that make sense?

Scott





---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi again Scott

Thank you once again for such a prompt reply.

Re your summation:

"If you are (faced with having to decide whether or not someone will die), then you determine what God's values are, ask for wisdom, and make the best decision you can."

I have come to that point myself Scott, but in doing so, I feel logically compelled to abandon the 'absolutist' school of thought.

If some situations are indeed so extraordinary and complex that there are no precedents in Scripture which illustrate the correct course of action, it becomes necessary to "make the best decision you can", as you have said.

As per the ship's officer who 'murdered' innocent people so that at least some could be saved; the best decision at times, may defy what is normally considered to be an 'absolute' wrong.

Is that fair enough?

I take it from your response to this scenario, that you personally would not condemn the officer for murder, even though he did indeed commit murder.

Do you think that God is also 'flexible' to this extent, given the circumstances?

What about the guy trapped in the flaming wreck who was 'murdered' to save him from the additional horror of burning alive? What would you do in such a situation?

If you let him burn so as not become guilty of murder, how would you justify that your thinking and your (lack of) action to his wife and family?

How would a soldier would could have spared a mortally wounded comrade the horror of being skinned alive by the enemy a few moments later, justify not doing so to that man's wife and family?

I must confess to feeling sick in the stomach at the thought at the thought of such things.

I can not relax with the notion that God might accept the idea that it is better to burn alive for the sake of a general rule, than accept that while rules may cover the majority of scenarios, they never cover them all satisfactorily.

Regards

Richard  

Answer
I'm not sure whether or not there's another question here. Let me just say this.

In God's mind, there's such a thing as right and wrong--absolute right and wrong. God never changes. And He never becomes "flexible" in regards to right or wrong.

It may sometimes be difficult to determine exactly what right and wrong is, in certain circumstances. But this does not mean that right and wrong do not exist. It simply means that great wisdom is needed in discovering the right and wrong.

Scott