The conversion of Saul of Tarsus provides an unanswerable argument for Christianity. Charles R. Erdman says, “The conversion of Saul of Tarsus . . . forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments in support of belief in . . . the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (100). This affirmation that the conversion of Saul (Paul) “forms one of the strongest arguments” in support of the historic resurrection of Jesus and, as a result, is itself proof of the Christian faith was the thesis of George Lyttleton in his classic volume on the conversion of Paul first published anonymously in 1747 when Lyttleton was thirty-eight years of age. Lyttleton was educated at Oxford, entered Parliament, and advanced to the position of lord, commissioner of the treasury. He admitted there were those who tried to shake his faith in the Christian religion, and T. T. Biddolph said that he, along with Gilbert West, had imbibed the principle of skepticism (Campbell 353-54). However, Lyttleton examined the reality of Christianity, and he deserted his unbelief because of a thorough examination which terminated in the production of his well-known dissertation on Saul’s conversion (Mitchell 341-42).
Read MoreFROM THE ARCHIVE
Through Life to Its End
Difficult end-of-life issues confront all people including Christians. While some unbelievers may seek answers only from secular, naturalistic theories of medicine, Christians believe that God has provided important information about health, illness, and death. God has spoken through our nature as human beings, through Jesus His Son, and through special revelation in the Bible.1 By introducing two classic cases, this fourth article discusses the significance of trusting a Christian worldview when dealing with end-of-life issues in bioethics. An appropriate Christian response to such cases does not always require us to cite Bible passages to those around us, but we should always benefit from such passages and live as godly people following the teaching and example of Jesus. Christian patients, physicians, and other caregivers can all be empowered by their biblical worldview.
Read MoreIn this third part of my attempt to articulate a Christian response to current bioethical issues, I focus on some of the challenges associated with the beginning of life. From the innumerable issues, I have chosen to address challenges associated with in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and prenatal diagnosis. Mentioning some texts from Genesis and the relevance of other biblical materials provides guidance for appropriate analysis of these hypothetical cases.
A Christian and biblical worldview provides context and content for coping with life, disease, and death. Our context is life as children of the Creator; our content and guidance is His revelation in our nature and in Scripture. Life is valuable, since people are created in God’s image; but not an absolute value, to be preserved always and at all costs. Though Christians can affirm that God is our Healer, people are not always immediately healed of all diseases or injuries. Because people live with the struggles of life as well as its blessings, Christians should always show God’s mercy to others (cf. Pack Sufficient Evidence Spring 2014, 3-15). Those who live life informed by God’s nature and His guidance bring an important contribution to current bioethical issues—a perspective shaped by the revelation of the Creator‘s own patient, merciful plan. As we noted in Part Two (Pack Sufficient Evidence Fall 2014, 87-94), Christian health care professionals have special opportunities to share their perspective on life’s blessings and struggles.
Today, Americans are pressed by society to accept what is described as a woman’s right to choose. However, many Christians view such choice as an inappropriate response to life in the womb.1 Dr. Andre Hellegers, an obstetrician and founding director of Georgetown University’s Kennedy Institute for Ethics, supported dignity for developing human life saying:
The last fifty years have brought many advances in healthcare, but they have also brought challenging moral dilemmas. On one end of life, its beginning, people are pressed by American culture to accept what is described as “a woman’s right to choose” when for many Christians that seems an inappropriate response to life in the womb. At the other end of life people are offered the benefits of medical science that can resuscitate and sustain bodily functions through extraordinary means, even when there seems no hope of recovery. In between, people struggle with illness and disease needing someone to help. In this article I consider how Christians can and should help, whether they work in healthcare themselves or simply understand and support others who have such careers.
In the first article in this series, I surveyed biblical materials and identified three important principles relevant to Christians confronting contemporary biomedical issues: (1) Human life is good and a great blessing from Him who created us in His image; however, life is not an absolute value to be preserved at all costs. (2) Though He is our Healer, God does not always immediately heal people of all diseases or injuries. (3) People created in the image of God should show His mercy to others (Pack 3-15).
Read MoreMy first memorable encounter with bioethics came when I was barely eighteen. As a student visiting a display area at a Christian college lectureship, I met a preacher who had developed a slide presentation for a sermon on abortion. He was circulating among the churches preaching this lesson trying to rally Christians to react to what he believed to be societal degradation associated with an increasing number of abortions and the ease with which abortions could be pursued. The presentation was an emotional appeal illustrated with traumatizing pictures of fetal remains— babies torn apart in abortion procedures. Such choices are emotional, and any illustrations one might use for such a lesson would be unavoidably so.
Even though I was young and immature, it still seemed obvious to me that only those who already agreed with this preacher would be convinced by his presentation. Those considering abortion seemed unlikely to be dissuaded, and those who previously had abortions might be driven into guilt and despair. Struggling women would probably find him unsympathetic and unpersuasive. The real issues involved in abortion would not be addressed with provocative slides and emotive language. Those inclined to think of abortion as a woman’s personal choice, a right that ought not be denied, might think this preacher’s approach was uninformed and judgmental. Those who disagreed with him would likely have other objections if they even bothered to listen to his presentation.
The approach this preacher proposed was more emotional and political than biblical. I found it to be poorly thought out and unlikely to reach people who really needed to consider the matter seriously. I was convinced that his presentation of the Christian position on abortion failed to adequately represent the Christian heart or a Christian worldview. It seemed to me that his approach would be ineffective with abortion proponents and any who needed compassionate guidance.
Read More