Category Archives: Hot Topics

The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?[1]

Erasmus, courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

What moves a religious person to become a born again Christian? I was raised in the liberal Methodist church in Bundaberg, Qld., Australia and went to Sunday School and church religiously. But that religion didn’t change the parents and children in our sugar cane farming household.

The change came in 1959 when my parents attended a landline Billy Graham crusade rally at the Bundaberg Showgrounds. Billy was preaching in Brisbane and his voice was booming out of the loud speaker system at the showgrounds.

My religious parents were sitting in their old Ford Prefect utility in the arena of those showgrounds (called fair grounds in the USA). After Billy’s proclamation of the Gospel, he gave the invitation to repent and to receive Jesus Christ by faith. Both of my parents got out of the Ute and moved to the podium where trained people met them for counselling to receive Christ.

On that day in May 1959, a religious household became a Christian home where Christ dwelt. Of course, my parents had to grow in their faith and they shared Christ with the three children. I was the eldest of the children and received Christ as my Lord and Saviour in the early 1960s as a teenager.

As church goers, we had used only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. All of my Bible reading and memorisation as a new Christian was from the KJV. I deeply appreciate the foundation to my faith that was bolstered by my reading and study of the KJV.

But this was not the language that an Aussie bloke spoke with thee, thy, thou lingo. It did not communicate with me and I felt hindered when I wanted to share my faith. It conveyed the idea that Christianity was assigned to a previous historical era (anachronistic) and out of touch with the ordinary folks.

When I went to Bible College in the early 1970s, a course in bibliology caused me to investigate Bible translations further. I am grateful for three resources that have helped me understand the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament and to assess it. The information below is gleaned from these resources:

D. A. Carson 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & exp.). Chicago: Moody Press.

Bruce M. Metzger 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In recent decades there has been an emerging pro-KJV debate that has been promoted by organisations and people such as the Trinitarian Bible Society and Gail Riplinger. There is a recognised “King James Only” movement.

On a practical level, I experienced two recent examples of the promotion of the KJV over other translations. The first was in a local church where I preach by invitation from time to time. I preached at this church on 26 December 2010. When I sent the order of service to the elder who reads the Bible in the service, with a copy of the Old Testament and New Testament in the New International Version, I was told that only the KJV or the New King James Version was allowed for public reading in that church. However, I could use whatever translation I preferred in my preaching. I preached from the NIV. This church obviously has a policy that supports the priority of the KJV Only view.

A second example was in a response to some blogging that I did on Christian Forums. In the thread, “Do any of you believe tongues is necessary?“, one response by JEBrady was, “Jesus never said anything about speaking in tongues, to my knowledge. Most of what you can find on the subject in the NT will be in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. Recommended reading for you.”.[2] My response[3] was:

“For those Pentecostal/charismatic believers who accept that Mark 16:9-20 is in the Scriptures (these are generally KJV supporters), they could say that Jesus did speak about tongues in Mark 16:17: ‘And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues’ (NIV).

“I do not support Mark 16:9-20 as being in the oldest and best manuscripts of the NT”.

Then there was this reply by Alive_Again:

“That’s the problem with the Hort-Westcott translations. They’ve eliminated scripture. The Mark scriptures in question were quoted by early church fathers. Just because it was translated from an older copy doesn’t mean it was more accurate.
It’s not surprising that the 40 odd scriptures taken from the NIV and recent versions of the Word of God take out scriptures that demonstrate how to deal effectively with the devil and one of the most important demonstrations of the Holy Spirit – speaking with “new” tongues (new to you)”[4].

Another writer, Jimoh[5], wrote: “Problem is Oz, many other scriptures are not included in those same texts… like dozens of the Psalms and half the book of Hebrews”.

In light of the above details, I find it necessary to examine some background to the Byzantine text-type, the Textus Receptus behind the KJV, and the Greek text gathered by Erasmus. Is the KJV a superior Bible version and have the modern versions been corrupted by Westcott & Hort’s ideology of Alexandrian text-type in gathering NT manuscripts?[6]

clip_image003
A part of page 336 of Erasmus’s Greek Testament, the first “Textus Receptus.” Shown is a portion of John 18 (courtesy keypoint.com)

1. The first Greek text to be published was that by Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (ca. AD 1469-1536) of Rotterdam, Holland. This was published in March 1516 and there were hundreds of printing errors in it. He published it as a diglot – in two languages, Greek and his own rather sophisticated Latin.

2. To prepare his Greek text, Erasmus used several Greek MSS but there was not one of them that incorporated the entire NT.

3. None of his MSS was earlier than the tenth century.

4. Erasmus consulted only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was lacking, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. So what did he do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. Therefore, in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS.

5. In other parts of the Greek NT, Erasmus introduced words he had translated from the Vulgate. Just as one example, in Acts 9:6 are the words from the KJV, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” These words have been found in no other Greek MSS. It is possible that Erasmus assimilated something that paralleled Acts 22:10.

6. Erasmus’s Greek NT testament is behind the King James Version NT. Yet it is based on only half a dozen minuscule MSS and not one of them is earlier than the tenth century. Erasmus’s text was printed by a number of publishers, the most important being Robert Estienne whose surname has been Latinised as Stephanus. He issued 4 editions and the third edition of 1550 is the first critical edition of the Greek text. It was Stephanus who introduced verse numbering into the text. The second edition was the one that was used by Luther for his German Bible (Carson 1979:34).

7. Theodore Beza, the successor to John Calvin, published a Greek text in 9 editions that varied very little from that of Stephanus.

8. The KJV translators relied on Beza’s editions of 1588-1589 and 1598. (The above information has been gleaned from Carson 1979:34-37). Carson explains:

“In 1624, thirteen years after the publication of the KJV, the Elzevir brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham, published a compact Greek New Testament, the text of which was largely that of Beza. In the second edition, published in 1633, there is an advertising blurb (Metzger’s term) that says, in Latin … (“The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted”). This is the origin of the term Textus Receptus (or TR, as it is often referred to): the Latin words “textum … receptum”  have simply been put into the nominative. The TR is not the “received text” in the sense that it has been received from God as over against other Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is the “received text” in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs. Nevertheless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness” (1979:36).

9. Up until 1881, the TR, only with a few modifications, was the basis of all European translations. The most prominent MSS of the TR were from the Byzantine family and these were the dominant MSS for 2 centuries. It is true that Beza had access to codex Bezae, which is a Western text-type, but it had such significant differences when compared with the others, that it was not used with any significance by Beza.

10. The TR is not in total agreement with the Byzantine family of texts as the Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR only refers to about one-hundredth of that evidence.

11. It is common for defenders of the TR and the KJV, to speak against the textual critical theories of B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort. This has been happening for about a century. Westcott & Hort had available to them the newly discovered codex Sinaiticus and by 1889-1890, codex Vaticanus, along with other MSS. Westcott, Hort & Bengel presented a case for following text-types and they found that the Byzantine tradition did not go any further back than the fourth century and that it was “a conflation of earlier texts” (Carson 1979:40). Westcott & Hort considered that the Alexandrian tradition (e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) was earlier than the Byzantine text-type, which only went back to about the middle of the fourth century.

Codex Vaticanus

Two columns of the Codex Vaticanus. Click for full-size image.
(courtesy Bible Research)

12. On this basis, the earliest text-type is not that of the Byzantine TR behind the KJV, but the Alexandrian tradition which is generally accepted today as being closer to the original manuscripts. Hence the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT and other translations since 1881 (except the NKJV) are based on the Alexandrian text-type. Carson (1979:52) is convinced from the evidence that “the Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available”. Part of his assessment is:

“Not only is the Alexandrian text-type found in some biblical quotations by ante-Nicene fathers, but the text-type is also attested by some of the early version witnesses. More convincing yet, Greek papyri from the second and third centuries have shown up, none of which reflects a Byzantine text and most of which have a mixed Alexandrian / Western text. The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type (Carson 1979:53).

13. There have been various KJV editions. The 1631 edition omitted the word “not” from the seventh of the Ten Commandments and so obtained the reputation of being called “Wicked Bible”. There was a 1717 edition printed at Oxford that has the reputation of being called the “Vinegar Bible” because the chapter heading of Luke 20 read “vinegar” instead of “vineyard” (Geisler & Nix 1986:567-568).

The 1769 revision of the KJV, which we use today, differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 details (Goodspeed in Geisler & Nix 1986:568). Many of these are minor changes of spelling. See: ‘Changes in the King James Version‘ from 1611 to 1769. A copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV is currently available for sale as The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha (Oxford World’s Classics).

Concerning what Erasmus did in omitting the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7-8, Bruce Metzger explains:

Erasmus replied that he [Erasmus] had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found–or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscripts had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscripts had been prepared expressly in order to confute him (Metzger 1992:101).

Thus, there are many good reasons for regarding the Textus Receptus behind the NT of the King James Version as not being superior to that used by the modern Greek critical text.

Jemand wrote a helpful summary in this area:

Websites that militantly defend the absurd notion that the King James Version of the Bible, and it alone, is “the preserved word of God” willfully and deliberately misrepresent the truth to make it appear that all other versions of the Bible are counterfeits of the real thing. The New Testament portion of the New King James Version (NKJV) is translated from the same Greek text that the New Testament portion of the King James Version is translated from. Here is a brief summary of the origin of that Greek text (I wrote this summary myself for use in another thread):

The first printed Greek New Testament was printed in 1514 as part of the Complutensian Polyglot which was not yet ready for publication. In 1515, publisher Johann Froben entered into a business agreement with the Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in which Erasmus was to prepare for publication a Greek New Testament, the first to ever be published. Froben wanted his Greek New Testament to be on the market before the Complutensian Polyglot, so Erasmus had to very hastily put his text together. Very much to his dismay, he was not able to find a Greek manuscript that contained the entire Greek New Testament; therefore he used several manuscripts, but mostly two 12th century manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle—one of which contained the four gospels and the other the Book of Acts and the epistles. This resulted in a manuscript for publication that contained corrections between the lines and in the margins. The published work, not surprisingly, included hundreds of typographical errors, causing F. H. A. Scrivener to comment that it was, “in that respect the most faulty book I know.”

Yet other difficulties plagued Erasmus in the preparation of his Greek text of the New Testament. He had only one Greek manuscript that contained the Book of Revelation. This manuscript that Erasmus had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin was incomplete—it lacked the final leaf that had contained the last six verses—and it had other defects. It included a commentary on Revelation and in places Erasmus was not able to distinguish between the text and the commentary. Therefore, in those places where the text was either missing or in doubt, he used the Latin Vulgate and translated it into Greek to complete his Greek Text. The result was that his Greek text of Revelation includes readings that are not found in any Greek manuscript and even a word that does not exist in the Greek language, but which because of superstition are still included in the so-called Textus Receptus, proving that for some people superstition trumps manuscript evidence. And translations from the Latin Vulgate are not limited to the Book of Revelation, but are found in other parts of his Greek text of the New Testament. This is the reason why, for example, the text of Acts 9:6 in the King James Version is very different from the text in other translation that do not rely upon the mistakes of Erasmus, including all of them that are translated from the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text type.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (King James Version)

Acts 9:6 but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (Revised Version of 1881 and similarly in every standard translation since then)

The first edition of Erasmus’ Greek text of the New Testament was published in 1516 with a second edition in 1519. The reception was mixed—the 3,300 copies sold quickly but the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford (and some others) forbade their students from reading them. A very important and historical objection to these two editions of Erasmus’ Greek text of the New Testament came from one of the editors Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot, Stunica. This objection was that the Greek text for the last part of 1 John 5:7 and first part of 1 John 5:8 were missing. Erasmus replied that he had never seen a manuscript of the Greek New Testament that included those words but very foolishly and very much to his regret later made the promise that he would include them in the third edition of his Greek text of the New Testament if Stunica could provide him with even one Greek manuscript in which the words were found. To the dismay of Erasmus, Stunica, a man lacking the moral fiber of which Erasmus was made, provided Erasmus with such a manuscript—a manuscript that was apparently written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy who translated the words from the Latin Vulgate and inserted them into his Greek manuscript. Erasmus kept his word and inserted the words into the third edition of his Greek text of the New Testament which was published in 1522, but included a lengthy footnote in which he wrote that he believed that the Greek manuscript supplied to him containing those words was probably written for that very purpose. That manuscript is now known as Codex Greg. 61 and the words are known as the Comma Johanneum. The King James translation of the New Testament translates those words as “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness on earth:” During the nearly four centuries since Codex Greg. 61 was written, the Comma Johanneum has been found in only three other Greek manuscripts:

Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript in which the Comma is found in a marginal note that was written in the 17th century

Tisch. w 110, a 16th century manuscript that is a copy of the Greek text of the New Testament in the Complutensian Polyglot

Greg. 629, a 14th century (or possibly 16th century) manuscript

Erasmus had now seen the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot and generously used it to revise his own Greek text, making changes to 90 passages in the Book of Revelation alone in his fourth edition of 1527. In 1535, Erasmus published his fifth and final edition in which he made only minor revisions of his Greek text.

Robert Estienne (also known by his Latin name Stephanus) published four editions of the Greek New Testament in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. The Greek text in his third edition was very similar to the Greek text in the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus. In his fourth edition, he introduced the numbering of the verses in the New Testament, the numbering system still employed (for the most part) today. The third edition, or Jean Crispin’s (sometimes spelled Crespin) much smaller reprint of it, became the textual basis for the New Testament in the Geneva Bible translated by William Whittingham and other English Protestants, the first English version to include variant readings in the margins.

Théodore de Bèze (commonly spelled Beza) published nine editions of the Greek New Testament and a tenth was published posthumously in 1611. Four of the nine included variations in the Greek text, those of 1565, 1582, 1588-89, and 1598. The editions of 1588-89 and 1598 were used to a significant extent by the translators of the New Testament portion of the King James Version, but the primary text used by the translators of the King James Version was the 1550 edition by Stephanus. The translators of the New Testament portion of the New King James Version consistently translated from the Greek text underlying the New Testament portion of the King James Version (Jemand, Bible Forums, ‘Is the NKJV corrupted?’ #106, 20 March 2009)

I know that this kind of post will not go down well with Textus Receptus and KJV Only supporters, but these matters need to be clarified.

I recommend the article by Daniel Wallace, “Why I do not think the King James Bible is the best translation available today”.

Appendix A

One of the finest histories of the Christian church is that by Kenneth Scott Latourette 1975. A History of Christianity (vol. 1, rev. edn.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Latourette states of Erasmus:

“He was ordained to the [Roman Catholic] priesthood…. He wished to see the Church purged of superstition through the use of intelligence and a return to the ethical teachings of Christ. He desired no break with the existing Catholic Church. He initiated no innovation in doctrine or worship…. He got out an edition of the Greek Testament [Textus Receptus] with a fresh translation into Latin” (pp. 661-62).

 

Appendix B

Bruce Metzger (1992:99-103) has summarised the situation:

Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript which contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels … and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others of the same books and entered occasional corrections for the printer in the margins or between the lines of the Greek script. For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are so mixed up as to be almost indistinguishable, Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript-but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.

Even in other parts of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate. Thus in Acts ix. 6, the question which Paul asks at the time of his conversion on the Damascus road, ‘And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’, was frankly interpolated by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. This addition, which is found in no Greek manuscript at this passage (though it appears in the parallel account of Acts xxii. 10), became part of the Textus Receptus, from which the King James version was made in 1611.

The reception accorded Erasmus’ edition, the first published Greek New Testament, was mixed. On the one hand, it found many purchasers throughout Europe. Within three years a second edition was called for, and the total number of copies of the 1516 and 1519 editions amounted to 3,300. The second edition became the basis of Luther’s German translation….

Among the criticisms leveled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot, that his text lacked part of the final chapter of I John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning ‘the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth’ (I John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In a guarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found – or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to refute him.

Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a twelfth-century manuscript which has the Comma written in the margin in a seventeenth-century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is, a sixteenth-century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629, dating from the fourteenth or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the sixteenth century. The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus (ch. 4), attributed either to Priscillian or to his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain. The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of I John, when it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century. The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800….

Thus the text of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen miniscule [lower case script] manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a miniscule of the tenth century, which agrees often with the earlier uncial [upper case script] text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! Erasmus’ text is inferior in critical value to the Complutensian, yet because it was the first on the market and was available in a cheaper and more convenient form, it attained a far greater influence than its rival, which had been in preparation from 1502 to 1514….

Subsequent editors, though making a number of alterations in Erasmus’ text, essentially reproduced this debased form of the Greek Testament. Having secured an undeserved pre-eminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly efforts to displace it in favour of an earlier and more accurate text.

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Metzger, B. M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,and Restoration (third ed). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Endnotes:

[1] By modern translations, I am referring to examples such as the New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation and the New Revised Standard Version. The New King James Version is not included because of its dependence on the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text.

[2] #12 of the thread.

[3] I’m OzSpen, #147 of the thread.

[4] #148 of the thread.

[5] #149 of the thread.

[6] I provided some of this information in #153 and #154 of the thread.

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.   This document last updated at Date: 31 March 2016.

designBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-sma

State school chaplaincy program challenged

http://www.suqld.org.au/chaplaincy
Courtesy SU Qld

There was an article in the The Chronicle (Toowoomba), “Dad fights chaplaincy program” (Jim Campbell, 28 October 2010). Part of this article stated that a Toowoomba father of 6 has hired a Sydney barrister and his team to challenge the legality of the federal government funding the state school chaplaincy program.

Why is this man challenging the program? He was quoted as saying that it was “because he had expected his children to enjoy a public education in a secular state school”. This man claims, “It concerns all Australians, of all faiths and none, who support the secular wall of separation concept concerning church and state.”

In the “recent comments” section following this article, I posted this response:

Posted by Spencer from Hervey Bay, Queensland

09 November 2010 6:14 p.m.

We don’t seem to have too much of a problem with pastoral care and chaplaincy departments in public hospitals. The Queensland Govt’s statement is: “Most hospitals have a pastoral care team of representatives from various religious groups. They offer advice, guidance and support and will help anyone regardless of their beliefs. If you or your family would like to see a pastoral care worker please see a staff member and they will provide you with contact details”. And these are in state public hospitals.

But dare to place chaplains who implement pastoral care strategies, with federal funding, in state public schools and we get the kind of antagonism that I see in this thread.

Mr. Williams needs to be reminded that nobody is forced to accept the chaplaincy role of pastoral care and religious involvement on any school site. It is voluntary. Could you imagine any secular school teacher in, say, a science topic give other than the secularist perspective when there are other theories or options? But my children and I were forced to take a one-eyed, biased, secular perspective in the classroom in some of these classes.

I can read the anti-religionists in this thread opposing pastoral care and chaplaincy in public schools. But where are the secularists opposing biased secularism in some classrooms?

That would be asking too much.

There was this response to my letter:

Posted by lukerevolution from Gympie, Queensland

10 November 2010 11:01 p.m.

Spencer. What is “biased secularism”? What in school the curriculum is biased towards secularism. Would you prefer that school systems were less secular, say, if Catholic kids got extra marks in exams because an education department head is a Catholic so prefers to see Catholic kids do well?

I am not anti-religion, I am anti state enforced religion. The state is using public money to promote fundamentalist christianity to children. I do not want my tax money spent on that. The government should reduce taxation and, if people want that, they can spend their own money on that.

Just because that is my opinion theists say I am oppressing them. What about my religious freedom. I have an opinion on religion, I see it as childish nonsense, but the government prohibits me from saying this as a chaplain at a school because only new earth creationist theists are allowed to join the ranks of SU chaplains.

Your hospital analogy is flawed because hospital chaplains don’t attend and pray at compulsory assemblies at hospitals. Doctors don’t prescribe visits to the chaplains. Children are accompanied at hospitals by their parents. You say yourself that it is a pastoral care team, ie: not only fundamentalist chirstians (sic) who will explain that gay people are going to hell at the drop of a hat.

Our secular, liberal democracy requires the separation of church and state to function. This scheme dilutes our democracy.

When I attempted to respond to lukerevolution on 12th November 2010, The Chronicle had closed further comments on this article. The following is my response:

Lukerevolution, “biased secularism” is the kind of worldview that you espoused in your letter. It defines the one-eyed biased view of origins of life that I received when I studied biopsychology in a university doctoral class. I had the same experience when I studied physics at high school and uni.

You don’t want public money spent on “fundamentalist Christianity” and you say that you are anti state-enforced religion. Let’s get something straight. We have no enforced state religion in Australia. There is no enforced religion in the high school chaplaincy program. Permission is sought from parents.

In freedom of religion that is the government’s position in Australia, you have been allowed in your letter to create a straw man logical fallacy with your writing off Christianity as “childish nonsense”. We can’t have a reasoned discussion when you use this kind of fallacy.

You want the separation of church and state in Australia. If that happened here in Queensland, the community services sector would collapse if government funds were removed for counselling, medical support, aged care and other community care activities. Where would we be as a nation if the following church-based organisations withdrew from our community service sector and received no government funding? Uniting Care, Lifeline, Centacare, St. Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, Churches of Christ Care, Baptist Care, the Mater Hospitals, etc?

The hospital analogy is legitimate because, in this secular society, which you want to promote, pastoral care duties by Christian clergy and other church people are permitted and encouraged in secular, State hospitals.

Where is the evidence that only “new earth creationist theists” are allowed to be Scripture Union (SU) chaplains? I have read the “SU Statement of Beliefs & Christian Creeds” online and there is not one word about having to be a young earth creationist. Again, you create a straw man logical fallacy. There may be chaplains who are young earth creationists, but that is not a core belief of Scripture Union according to its statement of beliefs.

To apply to become a school chaplain, see HERE.

 

Copyright (c)  2010 Spencer D. Gear.  This document is free content.  You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version.  This document last updated at Date: 19 December 2013.

“All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

Edmund Burke

 

Worldliness in church music

Sing to the Lord

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Introduction

When I walk into the average, contemporary evangelical church and hear the “church music”, it reminds me of my DJ days as a rock radio announcer. The thumping beat of this church music and some of the light-hearted, flimsy words, remind me of the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix  that I played on-air and at Record Hops long ago at the Maryborough Rowers’ Hall as a 4MB DJ in Queensland, Australia, back in the 1960s and 70s.

Within the church, this is known as contemporary Christian music (CCM). I have an increasing discomfort over what is happening to music and preaching in the evangelical church. We can expect light-hearted stuff from the liberal church because it has assaulted biblical authority, but to see it happening in the evangelical church rings alarm bells for me. [See “How liberal churches undermine the Bible. Part 1; Part 2]

Infiltration of evangelical churches

What has become of the evangelical church that it seems not to be able to discern the world’s style of music from that which glorifies the Lord in songs, hymns & spiritual songs of praise and edification (Matt. 26:30; Acts 26:25; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) . Has worldliness engulfed the church? I considered writing an article on this theme because it is bothering me that the seeker-sensitive church seems to have swallowed worldly music styles as part of the seeker-sensitive package. Are attempts for the church to reach the secular community and not bore church people, reasons for engaging in compromise of the Christian standard through styles of music in the church? See the article, “Did Bill Hybels ‘repent’ of seeker-sensitive?”

However, others before me have addressed this topic. In what follows, I provide a few links to expand on the reasons for my discomfort with worldliness and CCM.

Worldliness and contemporary Christian music

What is worldliness? Here’s a solid outline of it, based on I John 2:14-17. I hope you took a read. Iain Murray has a helpful article on “Worldliness”. Dr. Jack Arnold asks, “What is worldliness?” in his article on Romans 12:2.

Dr Frank Garlock has taken the church to task over “pop goes the music”, starting back in the 1970s, and the worldliness of much of CCM.

“Dr. Garlock teaches that music is not neutral or amoral. It is a language; in fact, it is one of the most important languages on earth. He warns that the message of the music must match the message of the lyrics. He says, “The words only let you know what the music already says. … The music is its own message and it can completely change the message of the words”
(Garlock, The Big Beat: A Rock Blast).

Fanny Crosby, the renowned hymnist, had some pointed observations of the connection between music and worldliness. In “Bible guidelines for Christian music” it is stated:

Fanny Crosby is the greatest hymn writer that ever lived, writing over 9,000 songs! Before Fanny got saved, at 45 years old, she wrote many secular songs. But after she got saved — things were different. . . Here’s what Fanny said about mixing Christian and worldly music:

“Sometimes I need to reject the music proposed for my songs because the musicians misunderstand that the Fanny Crosby who once wrote for the people in the saloons has merely changed the lyrics. Oh my no. The church must never sing it’s songs to the melodies of the world.” (Danny Castle, video “What’s Wrong with Christian Rock”)

And do you know why Fanny Crosby said that — because Fanny got saved! And God “hath put a NEW SONG in my mouth, even PRAISE unto our God” inside the NEW Fanny Crosby! Fanny Crosby wrote over 9,000 songs to the Lord! Fanny used over 200 different pen names because she wanted to make sure God got the glory and not her.

Praise Him! praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
SING, O Earth, His wonderful love proclaim!
Hail Him! Hail Him! Highest archangels in Glory;
Strength and honor give to His holy name!
Like a shepherd, Jesus will guard His children,
In His arms He carries them all day long;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful SONG.

Pastor Phil Christensen challenges Frank Garlock in his “Response to Frank Garlock” and Garlock’s view of worldly church music.

Is the origin of rock music worldly?

By worldly, I mean a mind-set from this secular world and not from the Scriptures as proclaimed by the evangelical Christian church. What is the origin of rock music?  Did it originate in the church or in the world? This is the Encyclopedia Britannica’s take on the origin of rock music.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia states:

Musical style that arose in the U.S. in the mid-1950s and became the dominant form of popular music in the world. Though rock has used a wide variety of instruments, its basic elements are one or several vocalists, heavily amplified electric guitars (including bass, rhythm, and lead), and drums. It began as a simple style, relying on heavy, dance-oriented rhythms, uncomplicated melodies and harmonies, and lyrics sympathetic to its teenage audience’s concerns — young love, the stresses of adolescence, and automobiles. Its roots lay principally in rhythm and blues (R&B) and country music. Both R&B and country existed outside the mainstream of popular music in the early 1950s, when the Cleveland disc jockey Alan Freed (1921 – 65) and others began programming R&B, which until then had been played only to black audiences. Freed’s success gave currency to the term rock and roll. The highly rhythmic, sensual music of Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and the Comets, and particularly Elvis Presley in 1955 – 56 struck a responsive chord in the newly affluent postwar teenagers. In the 1960s several influences combined to lift rock out of what had already declined into a bland and mechanical format. In England, where rock’s development had been slow, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were found to have retained the freshness of its very early years and achieved enormous success in the U.S., where a new generation had grown up unaware of the musical influences of the new stars. At the same time, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, the Byrds, and others were blending the traditional ballads and verse forms of folk music with rock, and musicians began to explore social and political themes. Performers such as the Grateful Dead, Jim Morrison of the Doors, and Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention combined imaginative lyrics with instrumental virtuosity, typically featuring lengthy solo improvisation. Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix won large followings with their exotic elaborations on R&B. The 1970s saw the rise of singer-songwriters such as Paul Simon, Neil Young, Elton John, David Bowie, and Bruce Springsteen, and rock assimilated other forms to produce jazz-rock, heavy metal, and punk rock. In the 1980s the disco-influenced rock of Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Prince was balanced by the post-punk “new wave” music of performers such as Laurie Anderson, Talking Heads (led by David Byrne), and the Eurythmics — all of whom illustrated their songs with music videos. By the 1990s rock music had incorporated grunge, rap, techno, and other forms.

Please don’t say that there are lots of things from worldly inventors that Christians use such as the motor car, refrigerator, microwave and DVD player.  But these are not used for Christian worship.

I’ll let you be the judge, but it seems to me that in the contemporary, evangelical church, the world’s system of music has infiltrated the church in association with light-hearted, seeker-sensitive “preaching” (talks on the faith). Is this worldly preaching? See John MacArthur on “Charles Spurgeon and worldly preaching”. This is what C. H. Spurgeon had to say about “worldliness”.

Vance Havner lived from 1901-1986. During that time he wrote the following:


“Once we stood amazed at worship in the presence of the Lord. Now a generation bred on entertainment wants to sit amused. What was once an experience has become a performance and the church must put on a show. The idea of entertainment in things spiritual is nowhere in the New Testament. Nothing was further from the minds of the early saints than the idea that “we must make it interesting.” It was interesting but it was the mighty power of God that drew amazed throngs to ask, “What meaneth this?”

“It is a decadent generation in the last days that cannot endure sound doctrine and heaps to itself teachers to tickle its itching ears. Much of the professing church works itself into a fever trying to entertain as though taking a cue from Hollywood. We pattern after the age in a futile effort to reach these jaded mortals with a religious version of the thing they are surfeited with already. We go far afield and spend millions providing recreation and sport for a jittery generation that cannot rest or meditate but must be ‘doing something’ all the time. Someone has said that we do not need bowling rooms in our churches half as much as we need ‘bawling rooms,’ where parents and children need to weep their way back to God in confession of sin.

“There will be no revival until we return from amusement to amazement. Men must first ask in wonder, “’What meaneth this?’ before they will inquire, ‘What shall we do?’” (A Treasury of Vance Havner: Twentieth-Century Prophet, Preacher, Pilgrim, compiled by Betsy D. Scanlan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988, pp 238-9)

What would Vance Havner think today?

Contemporary Christian rock music is worldly

I see much of modern church music as worldly because

  • It has one dimension, a worldly way, to speak in a manner to move human beings and not in a God-focussed,  transcendent way. This happens through the light-hearted music style of rock music, some country and jazz styles. This sound is pleasing to the ears of many. However, postmodernist, classical forms of music also can be used one-dimensionally to move the emotions of the heart and soul.
  • The worldliness is accentuated by the light content of the lyrics.
  • Some of the light stuff of lyrics could have a proper spiritual use in some places, but mostly it does not.  Most of it is human pleasing.

 

What do the Scriptures say?

In the Scriptures we are exhorted to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16), but this is in the context (v. 16) of, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom”. Honestly, can this be done to the driving beat of drums and guitars of rock music that tends to dull and overpower the words? We do need a spiritual diet of all three types of songs when we come to worship – psalms, hymns and spiritual songs so that we are edified and uplifted in music of praise to our God, the holy Trinity. Our music is not to be an experience generator but to contain content that will glorify God when we hear and sing it. Rock music tends to cloud the lyrics of worship. These psalms, hymn and spiritual songs need to be melodious and singable for the average congregation.  Of course, some heart response music has its place in invitational situations, but it can tend to be human focussed too much.

Is there a way back to worshipful music for singing in the church gathering? Singing the words of the Bible, including the metrical psalms, could create more songs of praise to God and less human–focussed mood music that is designed to titillate the emotions. Many old hymns are God-focussed. I’m thinking of hymns such as “To God be the Glory”, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty”, “The Lord is my Shepherd”, “O Worship the King, all-glorious above”, and “Great is thy Faithfulness”.

The Evangelical Movement of Wales has produced a God-centred hymnal in Christian Hymns (1977, Byrntirion, Bridgend). However, does this comply with my musical tastes and rock music doesn’t? The more recent music of Bill & Gloria Gather, including, “Because He lives”, also is Christ-exalting music.

I am convinced that worship of God needs to move human beings to Godward thinking rather than towards human mood music. While individual tastes can be considered, Christian music will involve moving away from sensual, rebellious styles of music to focus on God and all of his attributes. The ideal combination for the church gathering would be God-centred music that draws one to the transcendent Lord of the universe and combine it with expository preaching that focuses on the content of Scripture and not the preacher’s opinion.

Appendix 1: Comments from a CCM promoter

I asked for his comments on the article above. He wrote:

I may surprise you when I say, in the most part, that I wholeheartedly agree with you.  My greater concern is not so much the style (although that can be a worry too) but rather lyrics (content, Biblical correctness and subject) and attitude of the worship leaders and singers (performance vs leading the congregation to the throne of the King).  I believe that music style doesn’t have to be ancient to be classed as worship or worshipful and some old hymns drive me nuts with their awful musicality!

One of my favourite singers of Christian music is Aled Jones.  A few years ago he penned a worship song called “Vespera”.  It was truly what we might call worshipful Church Music – organ as core instrument and with a boys’ choir with two boy soprano soloists.  Each time I hear it – and often play it in my quiet time – I am transported through the heavenly vastness and find myself in the throne room of Our Father.  It makes me wonder and hope that (when we reach glory) we might hear such voices worshipping God and stirring our hearts. Praise God!

Whilst I do like modern music there are limits.  My short time at [a stated church] allowed me to see such extreme rubbish as – “Let the Holy Ghost Fall”.  This gave me the impression that the Holy Ghost was like a sack of potatoes falling out of heaven and hitting people, knocking them to the floor!  Anyway it was “performed”  by a gyrating young guy who would be better placed in a club room at a hotel under spot lights and also the night where [the pastor’s wife] ended her “worship” song, laying on her back on the “stage”  kicking her legs to the sky!  I have both these on video too!  Whilst a couple of songs that night were true worship songs (even though in a modern framework) but most of the service was performance and self promotion, obviously designed to entertain the patrons and evoke emotional responses rather than reverently offering praise and worship to Almighty God – who is worthy to be praised!

There are so many issues where the church today is out of step and I think this is increasingly becoming one of those areas.  I remember an article way back by Christian artist – Steven Curtis Chapman on the same subject – its a very sobering look at the same issue!

I see music as a gift from God, but so many have hijacked its beauty and purpose to create noise.  I suppose I am with Larry Norman here -“Why should the Devil have all the Good music?”

We need apologists like you to keep these issues before the Christian Church, even if it causes us to do no more than talk and pontificate on the issue.  Hopefully people will heed the call to truly worship God rather than entertain the sheep!

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 May 2016.

6pointLight6pointLight6pointLight6pointLight6pointLight

 

Are there degrees of punishment in hell?[1]

By Spencer D Gear

Hell is Real

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Some people object to the doctrine of hell, saying that it is not something a loving God would do. I do some blogging[2] on the Christian Fellowship Forum and there is a Seventh-Day Adventist, Harold, on that Forum. He wrote to me:

“Malachi states that the dead are ashes…. God states that there will be no tears in Heaven. Can you honestly state that you can stand there and know that some of your loved ones are burning and not shed a tear?  How can you? Is YOUR God that cruel?”[3]

He goes on further to give another emotional response that is not based on the exegesis of the biblical text:

“Eternal punishment  simply means that the results of it are permanent. They last forever.  Stick a piece of paper in a can. Light it. It burns ‘up’.  FOREVER. It is gone. Forever.
“What would the purpose be for God to punish anyone for the sin of one short lifetime?  They have thrown away their chance to be with God, forever. They are lost. They know that. Now. Why put them through something you wouldn’t do to a dog?
Your ‘doctrine’ has driven people to leave the church, some even to the point of suicide.  Is that God’s plan? THINK.”[4]

Others ask the honest question, “How can a God of love make eternal hell the punishment for all unbelievers?” Some have committed horrendous crimes and engaged in disgusting immorality, while others have not done that. Is it fair for God to treat all people in hell the same and give them equal punishment?

This very brief article is an attempt to answer this latter question, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?”

1. Since God is “the righteous Judge” (2 Tim. 4:8), we would expect that sinners would be punished according to the extent of their sin. This is what the Bible affirms.

2. Matthew 10:14-15 states, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (ESV).

So it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who do not welcome and listen to the apostles. This is an amazing statement: it is going to be fairer for those who committed sexual immorality in Sodom & Gomorrah than for those who rejected the gospel. What is this saying about punishment in hell?

3. A similar affirmation of degrees of punishment can be found in Matthew 11:21-24,

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you”  (NIV).

4. Luke 12:47-48 speaks of many blows and few blows: “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (ESV).

The lesson is that where one has greater privileges, there will be greater responsibilities. J. C. Ryle warned: “The saddest road to hell is that which runs under the pulpit, past the Bible and through the midst of warnings and invitations.”[5]

5. When Jesus criticised the religious leaders at his time on earth, he said that “such men will be punished more severely” (NIV, see Mark 12:38-40). This clearly indicates degrees of punishment in hell.

6. John’s vision of the judgment against “Babylon” (Rev. 18:1-7) indicates degree of punishment in proportion to sin committed.

7. Other verses to contemplate include Mark 9:42 and Romans 2:5. John Blanchard writes: “Every day the sinner lives, every selfish penny he makes, every unholy pleasure he enjoys, every ungrateful breath he takes, are storing up God’s anger against him.”[6]

8. We need to remember that:

a. Only God’s kind of justice will be experienced in hell;

b. There will be degrees of punishment, but

c. That is nothing to gloat about because punishment in hell is eternal, no matter what it is like.

A red herring logical fallacy of infinite punishment for a finite sin

Those who claim that hell is an infinite punishment for finite sin, commit a red herring logical fallacy. This article, ‘Is hell an infinite punishment?’ shows the red herring nature of this kind of argumentation.

This article of mine, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?’ also demonstrates the false nature of the infinite punishment vs. finite sin view.

The seriousness of sin against the Almighty God is what sends unbelievers to hell.  Degrees of punishment in hell do not lessen the eternal dimensions of hell and its suffering.  For a more detailed assessment of God’s view of hell, see my article, “Hell & Judgment.”

Notes:

[1] Many of the ideas in this article were suggested by Blanchard (1993:182ff). My article here was a response to a question by Claudette on the TDELTA Forum, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?” This was posted about Thursday, 27 September 2001. This forum is not available to a public audience.  It is restricted to the students of Trinity Theological Seminary, Newburgh IN (where I was studying at the time).  For further support of degrees of punishment in hell, see Morey (1984:250); Peterson (1995:198-200). See also Peterson’s Index.

[2] I’m ozspen.

[3] Christian Fellowship Forum, Public Affairs, “Climate change worst scientific scandal,” 18 December 2009, #182, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=180&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=119873 (Accessed 25 December 2009).

[4] Harold to ozspen (me), Christian Fellowship Forum, ibid. #190, 20 December 2009, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=180&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=119873 (Accessed 25 December 2009).

[5] In Blanchard (1993:183).

[6] Blanchard (1993:185). This comment is based on what Blanchard considers are the “terrifying words” (p. 185) of Roman 2:5.

 

Works consulted

Blanchard, J 1993. Whatever Happened to Hell? Darlington, Co. Durham, England: Evangelical Press.

Morey, R A 1984. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Peterson, R A 1995. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing,

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 December 2017.

6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue

Easter and the healthy committing suicide

At this Easter season (2009), we are faced with a situation where the eternal consequences of death are ignored and the promotion of suicide is glorified. Those of us who have spent years trying to prevent suicide receive a lethal message from this Swiss lawyer.

Here’s the situation. There should be virtually no restrictions on helping people to commit suicide. These are the comments from human rights lawyer, Ludwig Minelli, from the Dignatas Swiss clinic that offers help to people to kill themselves. That is what Minelli told BBC radio in the UK on 2 April 2009.

This controversial comment has come from the organisation that runs a clinic in Switzerland that has assisted almost 900 people to kill themselves, about 100 of them being British. Fortunately, Swiss psychiatrists are not recommending this clinic.

The British newspaper, The Guardian (4 April), reported that Minelli saw assisted suicide as “a very good possibility to escape a situation you can’t alter.” But he went way beyond this recommendation to cold-heartedly suggest that attempted suicide makes good business sense because of its burden on the costs of health care.

“For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the others are failing with heavy costs on the National Health Service,” he told the BBC. “They are terribly hurt afterwards. Sometimes you have to put them in institutions for 50 years, very costly.”

For those of us who have spent many years counselling those who are troubled by the issues of life and the family, Minelli’s kind of comment is like a kick in the guts. This lawyer is advocating that attempted suicide is such a financial burden on the health system that these people should be done away with.

Ultimately, what’s the difference in consequences between the ethics of Minelli and Hitler?

For my exposition on the deleterious consequences of euthanasia, see: “Voluntary Active Euthanasia – a compassionate solution to those in pain?”

Dignatas and the euthanasia advocates in Holland are demonstrating the slippery slope that happens when those who begin with the desire to assist suicide of the terminally ill, ends up advocating much more.

Herbert Hendin MD, Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College, and medical director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, stated in 1995: “Over the past two decades, the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia.”

Dr. Hendin advocates against physician-assisted suicide.

At this Easter season we need to consider another dimension. Among the advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia, an important factor seems to be overlooked.

What happens one second after you die? Where will you be? Is death the very end and the body and soul are obliterated? Talk of heaven or hell seems to be missing from this lethal advocacy for assisted suicide.

Worldviews have consequences. Worldviews of death need to be opposed by those who believe in eternal life and eternal punishment. Death does not end it all and Christ’s resurrection demonstrated this: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins” (First Corinthians chapter 15:16-17).

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6
Whytehouse designs

Voluntary Active Euthanasia: A Compassionate Solution for Those in Pain?

Image result for clipart euthanasia

DEBATE: MICHAEL MOORE, MLA & REV. SPENCER GEAR.This is Spencer Gear’s presentation.

8.00 pm Thursday 10 June 1993,

Erindale Theatre, McBryde Cr., Wanniassa ACT, Australia

EXAMPLE

“Jennie was only forty-eight when she found the breast lump.The surgeon had been hopeful, but the pathology report showed the cancer was very aggressive and had already spread to the lymph nodes.Radiation and chemotherapy were completed.

Before long, Jennie’s cancer had spread to her spine.Itgalloped through her bones, liver and lungs.She lost weight very rapidly, became depressed, and required large doses of morphine.The medication only partially relieved her severe pain.Any movement was excruciating.

Eventually her husband Sam asked the doctor to give Jennie one large injection of morphine so that she won’t suffer anymore?She’s been in so much pain for so long.She just wants to get it over with… All involved were ready for Jennie to die” (Orr, et. al., Life & Death Decisions, 151-152).

IF THE LARGE INJECTION OF MORPHINE HAD CAUSED DEATH, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA.

DEFINITION OF EUTHANASIA

I must define my terms.

Euthanasia is “the intentional killing of a person, for compassionate motives, whether the killing is by a direct action, such as a lethal injection, or by failing to perform an action necessary to maintain life” (from “Euthanasia: killing the dying.’It’s OK – isn’t it?’ Foundation For Human Development, Site 4A, 32 York Street, Sydney 2000).

Voluntary active means that the person asks to be killed.It must be realised however that those who promote euthanasia do not use the word “kill”, but it is the only accurate word to describe the reality of what happens.Besides, it is the word the law uses.

People are sometimes confused by the current debate on “the legality of disconnecting mechanical life support systems for long-term comatose patients or the patients’ right to request that no extraordinary means be used to keep them alive when all hope is gone.”This is often called passive euthanasia, but it is not euthanasia

This refers to the common law right of all Australians to decide which treatments they want to have for themselves.

But I must insist that this is not euthanasia.The Canadians got it correct in their 1983 Law Reform Commission when, following an inquiry, they concluded that “mercy killing not be made an offence separate from homicide” (in Brian Pollard, Euthanasia: Should We Kill the Dying?, p. 45).

Tonight when I use the term euthanasia, I will be referring to voluntary, active euthanasia.

OVERHEAD NO. 1

Euthanasia is not a compassionate solution to those in pain for the following reasons:

1.The first reason for not supporting voluntary active euthanasia is that: We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia. We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

a.  GERMANY

In Germany in 1920, there was a publication by a lawyer, Karl Binding, and a psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, called The Permission to Destroy Life Not Worth Living, that opened the floodgates and led to open discussion and legislation to permit euthanasia in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

Initially, it was seen to have a beneficial social effect in dealing with the so-called “useless” sick.

Why did they do it?For the very same reasons that are being advocated today: compassion, quality of life, and to cut the cost of caring for these so-called “useless people”.They stressed the cost of caring for the handicapped, the retarded and the mentally ill.They were called “useless eaters”.

This led to experimentation on human beings and genocide.It was a small step from euthanasia to the Nazi government’skilling of 6 million Jews, and it is estimated that about 6 million others also were killed.

Dr. Leo Alexander, a Boston psychiatrist at the Nuremberg trials after World War II (in 1946 and 1947) says:”it started with the acceptance of the attitude basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived “Medical Science Under Dictatorship”, New England Journal of Medicine 241:39-47, July 14, 1949.(This was also covered in Newsweek magazine, July 9, 1973)].

It started when doctors, lawyers, legislators and even clergy–against their professional and ethical obligations to respect all human life, decided to destroy life that they considered not worth living

Michael, there is no way to control voluntary euthanasia.

We have a much more recent example in Holland.

b.  HOLLAND

At St. Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra on Feb. 26, 1993, Michael, you said that your brief to the Parliamentary Council would be to give criteria (and you articulated them) similar to Holland.What is happening in Holland?

The official Dutch Government report (The Remmelink Report, 1991) gives conclusive evidence of abuse.The Dutch report shows clearly that doctors are killing without the explicit request of the patient.Doctors have violated the ‘strict medical guidelines’ provided by the Dutch courts (John Fleming, “Euthanasia, The Netherlands, and the Slippery Slopes”, Bioethics Research Notes Occasional Paper No.1, June 1992, published by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, PO Box 206, Plympton SA 5038, Australia).

OVERHEAD NO. 2

EUTHANASIA IN HOLLAND: CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS

(Although officially illegal at the time of the Remmelink Report)

1.The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely free and voluntary.

2.The patient’s request must be well considered, durable and persistent.

3.The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with no prospect of improvement.

4.Euthanasia must be a last resort.Other alternatives to alleviate the patient’s situation must have ben considered and found wanting.

5.Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.

6.The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has experience in the field.

Summarised by Mrs. Borst-Eilers, Vice-President of the Health Council (a body which provides scientific advice to the Dutch government on health issues).In I.J. Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands”, The Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 108, January 1992, p. 56]

OVERHEAD NO. 3

BUT WHAT WERE THE RESULTS IN HOLLAND?

The Dutch report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, states that “in cases of euthanasia the physician often declares that the patient died a natural death” (p. 669).This report indicates that 0.8% of the 38.0% of all deaths involving euthanasia were “life-terminating acts without explicit and persistent request” (p. 670) (Paul J. van der Maas, Johannes J.M. Delden, Loes Pijnenborg, and Caspar W.N. Looman, “Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life”,

The Lancet, 338:8768, September 14, 1991, 669).

This means that the deaths of about 1,000 Dutch people in a single year were caused by a doctor who hastened the death of a patient without the patient’s explicit request and consent.

But there is more.Another assessment is that the real number of physician assisted deaths, estimated by the Remmelink Committee Report is, in reality 25,306 which is made up of (they’re on the overhead projector for you to see):

  • 2,300euthanasia on request (Remmelink Report, 13),
  • 400 assisted suicide (ibid.15),
  • 1,000life-ending treatments without explicit request (ibid.),
  • 4,756died after request for non-treatment or the cessation of treatment

with the intention to accelerate the end of life. cf, ibid, 15; there were 5,800 such cases but only 82% (i.e. 4,756) of these patients actually died. cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 63ff

  • 8,750life prolonging treatment was withdrawn or withheld without the

request of the patient either with the implicit intention (4,750) or with the explicit intention (4,000) to terminate life.

[ibid., 69; There were 25,000 such cases but only 35% (i.e. 8,750) were done with the intention to terminate life. Cf ibid., 72; cf also Remmelink Report, 16),]


  • 8,100morphine overdose with the implicit intention (6,750) or explicit

intention (1,350) to terminate life. Of these, 61% were carried out without consultation with the patient, i.e. non-voluntary euthanasia.

  • There were 22,500 patients who received overdoses of morphine, cf

Remmelink Report, 16.36% were done with the intention to terminate life, cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 58.See ibid., 61, Tabel 7.7 (“Besluit niet besproken”)].

THIS TOTAL OF 25,306 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATHS AMOUNTED TO 19.61% OF TOTAL DEATHS [129,000] IN THE NETHERLANDS IN 1990.[“To this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborns, sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whose lives were terminated by doctors according to the Remmelink Report” (pp. 17-19). Source: Dutch-speaking Dr. Daniel Ch Overduin, Vita, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 2-3]

OVERHEAD NO. 4

(Title of Lancet article, “”Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life”)

Dr. John Keown, Director of the Centre for Health Care Law, in the Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, U.K., has completed a research project on euthanasia in Holland.He concludes:

OVERHEAD NO. 5

“It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated… It is clear from the evidence set out in Keown’s research that all that is known with certainty in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is being practised on a scale vastly exceeding the ‘known’ (truthfully reported and recorded) cases.There is little sense in which it can be said, in any of its forms, to be under control” (I.J. Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands”, in The Law Quarterly Review, 108, January 1992, 67, 78).

Yet Michael Moore stated at St. Mark’s that he wants to follow the Dutch guidelines.

2.  A second reason why euthanasia is not a compassionate solution is that there is no guarantee it will be limited to terminal illness for those in pain.The recent history of the euthanasia movement demonstrates this.

3.Michael has made his views clear.On the Matthew Abraham show, Radio 2CN, February 2, 1993, he was asked by:

Matthew Abraham: “What about an old married couple? Maybe in their 80s and they’ve been relatively independent in their own home, they don’t want to be of trouble to their kids, they’ve had a good life… They want to commit suicide as a couple…

Michael Moore: “I think it should be covered in the act and I think that under certain circumstances, given appropriate counselling and appropriate time to make that kind of decision.

He reinforced this at St. Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra on 26 Feb. 1993, I heard him say:

“I’m not just talking about the terminally ill, but also a couple, say who have been married 60 years, one of them is terminally ill and they want to die together. I would agree with that, but I don’t expect legislative support for that.”

No civilised society like ours will remain civilised if we endorse this kind or another kind of homicide.

How can we say where to limit? Chronic illness? Mental illness? Multiple sclerosis? Those crippled with arthritis? Persons who are handicapped? What about some of the people I counsel, like a 16-year-old who is on drugs, severely depressed and suicidal?

This is one of Michael’s core problems–where to draw the line.

The most recent review of the need for euthanasia in Australia was the Social Development Committee of the Parliament of Victoria. The report, called Options for Dying with Dignity in 1988 concluded: “It is neither desirable nor practicable for any legislative action to be taken establishing a right to die” (in Pollard, 45).

Those who start with euthanasia for the terminally ill, most often broaden their base:

One of the most blatant examples of how far euthanasia advocates will go is this (HOLD UP) Australian Human Rights Commission Occasional Paper No. 10 (published in August 1985): “Legal and Ethical Aspects of the Management of Newborns with Severe Disabilities”.

When published, this paper created quite an uproar because of what it recommended for babies with disabilities:

  • one of the main emphases was to support euthanasia for deformed newborn babies,
  • Dr Helga Kuhse promotes “a quick and painless injection” (to kill) for a Down’s Syndrome infant with an intestinal obstruction (p. 4).
  • Yet this Human Rights Commission document also cites the United Nations “Declaration of the Rights of the Child” which states: “The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required for his particular condition” (p. 28).

You can’t have it both ways: kill off the handicapped newborn, and give the handicapped special treatment, education and care.This is a shocking report advocating the killing of the handicapped newborn, all in the name of the Human Rights Commission.I believe this is eugenics (selective breeding).

Do you really think, if we were to legalise euthanasia, that doctors and nurses would stick to the rules?

In 1988, doctors surveyed in the State of Victoria were asked, “Have you ever taken steps to bring about the death of a patient who asked you to do so?”29% (of 369) replied “Yes”. (Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, “Doctors’ Practices and Attitudes Regarding Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Medical Journal of Australia, 148:12, June 20, 1988, 623-627).

The situation with nurses is just as alarming.

In 1992, “of those nurses who had been asked by a patient to hasten death, 5% had taken active steps to do so without having been asked by a doctor.

Almost all of the 25% who had been asked by a doctor to engage in active steps to end a patient’s life had done so” (Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, “Euthanasia: A survey of nurses’ attitudes and practices”, Australian Nurses’ Journal, 21:8, March 1992, 21-22).

With euthanasia illegal, some doctors and nurses are breaking the law.Do you honestly think they will follow, say Dutch guidelines, if they became legal?

3.The third reason: It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

According to Dr. Bob Allan, president of the ACT branch of the Australian Medical Association, “Modern palliative care ensured that patients should never have to consider euthanasia on the grounds of severe pain.Treatments are available to ensure death with dignity and without pain” (The Canberra Times, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 5).

Medical doctors, Robert D. Orr and David L. Schiedermayer, conclude:

“The hospice movement has demonstrated that physicians should be better educated about pain management and better equipped to treat pain effectively.More than ninety-five percent of cancer patients can be kept virtually pain free if given adequate doses of pain medication at appropriate intervals” (Orr, Schiedermayer, & Biebel, Life & Death Decisions, Navpress, 1990, p. 165).

Retired anaesthetist at Concord Hospital, Sydney, Dr. Brian Pollard, says:

“Most cancer pain is well within the competence of any doctor to treat effectively.It is necessary to regard unrelieved pain as a medical emergency to be dealt with as energetically as possible and to address also the emotional turmoil which is usually present” Euthanasia: Sould We Kill the Dying? Little Hills Press, Bedford, U.K. 1989, pp. 9-10, 65).

At a time when there is every reason to offer caring, compassionate palliative care to the sufferer, Michael wants to eliminate the sufferer rather than eliminate the suffering.

4.A fourth reason is that it debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

The standard form of the Hippocratic Oath that is taken by many medical doctors, dating back to the time of the Greeks, says:

“I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I considerfor the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” (in Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, 207).

Dr Bob Allan, president of the ACT branch of the Australian Medical Association confirms this position.He stated in The Canberra Times that “the association’s position, and that of the World Medical Association, was that euthanasia, even if requested by a patient, was unethical.

“Dr Allan said doctors would have great moral difficulty in actively bringing about the end of a patient’s life.

“To actively set out to end someone’s life is an enormous break from medical standards” (The Canberra Times, “Euthanasia row fires both sides”, February 3, 1993, p. 5).

Michael Moore has stated in The Canberra Times (Feb. 3, 1993, p.5), “I’m interested in facilitating the right of people to make a decision about their own life.It is the most fundamental of human rights–the right to life and the right to death”.

Michael is fundamentally and legally wrong at this point.He is not advocating the right to die.People can do that legally now by committing suicide.Michael is advocating something much more devastating to our society.He is claiming the right for somebody to be killed on request in certain circumstances.He is also calling for the right of others to assist in the killing of others.

This right does not exist in our society and it should never be introduced if we want to maintain a country with respect for one another.

5.The fifth reason to resist voluntary active euthanasia is: There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

This compassionate care involves a competent doctor effectively treating severe pain, emotional support and caring communication from others.Empathy is needed by the doctor and others.

We need to improve the standards of care for dying patients.I commend the ACT government’s initiatives to develop a hospice.It is urgently needed.

Inter-disciplinary teams will be needed involving doctors, nurses, clergy, social workers, other professionals and caring paraprofessionals.

6.The sixth and final reason: human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

As a doctor put it to me recently: We put down dogs, why shouldn’t we offer the elderly in a vegetative state the same?The reason is that human beings are not animals.Human beings are unique, “made in the image of God”, according to the Bible.

We could find support for this proposition by referring to Noam Chomsky’s work on the uniqueness of human language, or neurosurgeon, Wilder Penfield’s, research on the difference between the brain and the mind—both affirming the difference between human beings and animals.

As God’s image bearers, each of us has the capacity to be personal, rational, volitional, emotional, and moral. Our responsibility is to reflect God’s character and purposes in all that we do.

When we reduce human beings to animals, it logically follows that a whole range of horrendous evils could eventuate.

Human life is sacred and God has forbidden that any life be murdered.To do so it indirectly an attack on God.

Any society that engages in the killing of innocent life will pay a grave price.When we do not respect life before birth, if affects our view of life after birth.If we do not respect the dying, it will affect our attitude towards the living.As the Bible puts it: “For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Romans 14:7-8).

Euthanasia is not a compassionate solution to those in pain for the following reasons:

1.We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia.We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

2.There is no guarantee it will be limited to terminal illness for those in pain.The recent history of the euthanasia movement demonstrates this.

3.It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

4.It debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

5.There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

6.Human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

SUMMING UP

I oppose voluntary active euthanasia because of:

  • Abuse
  • Error
  • The historical and contemporary examples
  • Distrust, and
  • Coercion

I CONCLUDE:

The case for euthanasia is based on the following:

  • It intentionally kills or assists in the killing of innocent human beings.
  • It destroys the doctor-patient relationship that is meant to promote life.
  • It flies in the face of the medical advances made in the treatment of pain and is at odds with compassionate methods of care.
  • It does not fully consider the historical and contemporary examples that show euthanasia cannot be legislatively controlled.
  • It rests on presuppositions that do not respect human life.
  • It plays God.
  • Ethically, it rests on self-defeating assertions.
  • It is not in the patient’s or society’s best interests.
  • It eliminates the sufferer, rather than the suffering.

FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER & C. EVERETT KOOP dedicated their book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race,

” To those who were robbed of life,

the unborn, the weak, the sick,

the old, during the dark ages of

madness, selfishness, lust and greed

for which the last decades of the

twentieth century are remembered”

(Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, p. 118).


For further study:

  1. Tony Sheldon, Utrecht, Holland, “Being ‘tired of life’ is not grounds for euthanasia” (British Medical Journal).
  2. “Dutch legalise euthanasia” (BBC News)
  3. “Deadly diagnosis in the Netherlands” (Concerned Women for America)
  4. “Dutch doctors want to kill the healthy” (Christianity Today)
  5. “Euthanasia does not seem to be under effective control in the Netherlands.”
  6. “Dutch euthanasia law should apply to patients ‘suffering from living.” (British Medical Journal)
  7. “Who killed Grandpa? (Chuck Colson)
  8. “From a slippery slope to an avalanche” (Chuck Colson)
  9. “Coming soon to a hospital near you” (Chuck Colson)
  10. “Professor of Death: Peter Singer” (Christianity Today)
  11. Interview with Phillip Nitschke: Australian euthanasia advocate
  12. “Bishop Fisher & Dr. Phillip Nitschke in Sydney euthanasia debate“

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6