Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

With the vote count at 6-3, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's 1997 "Death with Dignity" law. The Bush administration began the challenge in 2001, claiming that the law allowed physicians to prescribe drugs without "legitimate medical purpose". For the majority, Justice Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design." While dissenting Justice Scalia noted that "If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."

Oregon's law requires that a person be at least 18 years old, a resident of Oregon, capable (defined as able to make and communicate health care decisions), and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. After a specific seven steps, a physician may prescribe a lethal dose of "medication". The doctor must report the prescription and the Department of Human Services must collect and publicly distribute data in accordance with legislation passed in 1999.

Briefly, I am disappointed in the Court's ruling. While, on the whole, I am glad for this debate--it has done some real good in terms of palliative care--the idea of medicating people to death does not strike me as the most ethical of positions. My stance is pretty simple: if medications happen to cause or speed up the death process in the act of helping or improving (life-giving) a patient's ability to cope with illness or injury, then the doctor has done his job as well as he or she can. This is particularly true in relation to pain medications. On the other hand, intentionally shortening life through the use of drugs leads to the belief that, in some situations, some lives are not worth living. Allowing death and hastening death are two very distinct positions. Medications, by definition, are used to help a person, a substance used in therapy; intending to kill someone is not therapy.

It appears that, once again, the people of Oregon will be required to deal with this issue as, perhaps, it should be.

Good News: I am not a heretic!

While it seems to be a little tongue in cheek, this little quiz does give you a sense of where you stand. Here’s my results:

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 75% Pelagianism 58% Nestorianism 42% Adoptionist 33% Apollanarian 33% Monophysitism 33% Modalism 25% Docetism 8% Albigensianism 8% Monarchianism 8% Socinianism 8% Donatism 0% Gnosticism 0% Arianism 0% Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com

I guess I'm still a "Fundamentalist", but I noticed that I score pretty high with Pelagianism (the belief in radical free will and the goodness of the natural world) and Nestorianism (the belief that Jesus was not a unified being, both God and man simultaneously). While I do not deny that human beings have complete free will--and, thus responsibility for their actions--I believe that humans are "tainted" with sin. That is not to say that physical mater is, itself, evil. Rather, that people pass on error from generation to generation. To what degree that genetics, family spiritual legacies or cultural environments play a part, I am not sure. Obviously though, I understand Jesus as a single being, who, from the beginning was God and was imparted into physical humanity through some unknown means. He was simultaneously fully human and fully God.

For more info on heresies, check out the following:

• Christian Heresies


• Heresies and Schisms in the Early Church


• Doctrine and Heresies in the Early Church


• Heretics, Heresies and the Church

Spong's Fourth Thesis

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

Spong does not state his strong premise, something like: "divine intervention and manipulation of 'literal' biology is impossible". Not only does Spong fail to clearly state this foundational premise, he seems content to provide no proof that his corollary argument is indeed true.

I am not about to make an attempt to prove that miracles do, indeed, exist; perhaps, I will tackle that in future posts. My problem with Spong is not that he has a different (and I would argue, equally difficult to defend) position than mine. Rather, Spong sees himself as a pure scientist talking about religious issues. Science, as we all know, has a certain arena to which it is confined: observable, repeatable, empirical data. It draws general conclusions from that collected and double-checked by a community of professional scientists familiar with particular questions. Spong is, quite simply, confusing reproductive biology with a particular issue in theology.

No one in their right mind is going to say that Christ's birth, as depicted in the Gospels is natural. Which makes Spong's statement, on the face of it, quite correct; it is quite impossible for a woman to have a child outside of the normal biological processes. Then again, that's why it's a miracle.

Spong simply cannot image a God that intervenes in human history, much less one that bodily manifests Himself. Spong is not re-thinking the New Testament account of Christ's incarnation and birth. He is abandoning it, which is fine and good. As with the other issues, because Spong cannot image a thing, it must be false. This is not sufficient proof that his opponents are wrong and his thesis is true. It simply leaves it open for respectful debate . . . I hope.

Christian Consumerism

Last night, our Worship Pastor invited everyone involved in the GPBC worship ministries for a time of prayer and consecration. It was a very moving and much-needed evening of news, supplication and fellowship. Dave did a great job of inspiring and challenging us to the possibilities God has is store for the church and Christ's Body in general for the coming year. I felt that Dave did a very good job of warning against consumer culture while balancing the need to meet one another's' needs.

For my part, I have struggled with the concept of Christian consumerism this past year. If looking to fulfill our needs is such a bad thing then why be at church at all? When I am feeling like I am bored with a particular song, should I just go through the motions, playing the notes and moving on to the next song? Doesn't God want to meet our needs?

What Dave was able to do though is to help me have a better understanding of the concept. While I have no problem with the fact that people DO come to church to receive, I am now more able to see how I might improve the situation. That is to say, we can only truly receive what God has prepared for us when we are willing to humble ourselves, submit, give and work hard. To often though, people (myself included) come to church to get something, be entertained, grab a blessing and, in the end, miss the opportunity to heal and bless others. This isn't what God requires of us. An attitude like that will only weaken the Body.

I will take Dave's admonition to heart this year. I will work hard to be a blessing to others, even though I may not feel like at the time.

My New Year's Resolution

This year I resolve to act more in line with what I believe. It's sometimes easy for me to be fearful, even though I have faith in God's purposes for my life. It's even easier let things slide and procrastinate, when I know that my life is supposed to be purpose-filled. I don't see myself as a major hypocrite, but there are times in my life when I do not act like a child of God. I want to take the time to honor God by making real connections between the way I think (and believe) and what I do.