In Search of Kingdom Living

I will focus on the two chapters that I gravitated towards for ethical discussion: just war, nonviolence and just peacemaking (ch. 7) and valuing life at its end (ch. 11). 

Just war, Nonviolence and Just Peacemaking

In this very real and difficult ethical dilemma, the authors propose that the basis for all three ethical perspectives be found in Jesus and his fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies about the reign of God bringing shalom.

At the heart of Christ’s ministry was peace, justice and compassion and that we are to be full participants alongside of Jesus. We must note that in the Old Testament, there are many examples of the ‘holy war tradition’ (Dt. 20, 1 Sam. 15, parts of Joshua). However, it is indicative that Jesus “never quoted passages that favor killing, war or national supremacy. He quoted only the passages that favor peacemaking” (p. 154).  This sprinkling of Jesus’ perspective sets the grounds for discussion.

First, just war theory, “rightly understood, is grounded in a strong presumption against the use of violence, a presumption estbalished for the Christian by the non-resistant example of Jesus… this presumption against resort to violence may be overcome only by the necessity to indicate justice and to protect the innocent against unjust aggressors” (p.158). The authors outline eight rules for the need of justice in deciding to go to war and its method used in war: just cause, just authority, last resort, just intetion, probability of success, proportionality of cost, clear announcement, war being fought by just means.

Second, nonviolence/pacifism, argues that “to be faithful to the way of Jesus, and Jesus clearly taught nonviolence and exemplified it in his life and in his death on the cross” (p. 166). This approach is not basically anti-just war, as Yoder distinguishes twenty-eight varieties of pacifism.

Third, just peacemaking, “encourages pacfists to be… peace-makers. And it calls just war theorists to enhance the content of their underdeveloped principles of last resort and just intention” (p. 170). Peacemaking advocates argue for ten practices: support nonviolent direction action; take independent initiatives to reduce threat; use cooperative conflict resolution; acknolwedge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness; promote democracy, human rights and religious liberty; foster just and sustainable economic development; work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system; strengthen the UN and international organizations; reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade; encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.

It is easy to dismiss one or several of the theories based on politics, tradition, or personal conviction. In order to have a healthy discussion about war issues, we can bring up Jesus’ theological convictions to form the basis for our discussion. I personally find the just peacemaking theory the most compelling and aligned to Christ’ teachings. I am uncertain, however, about what to do once peacemaking initiatives fail. It is easy to point a finger at the US and condemn them. I’m not sure what I would do if I were in a position to decide whether to engage in war or not. I think I would differ to pacifism if just peacemaking fails and I would need to discuss and pray over such issues with my faith community.

Valuing Life at its End

I had anticipated this chapter with a bit of reservation as it hits close to home. My maternal grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer after many years of smoking and my family had to consider whether to forlong his death by letting him stay hooked onto a machine. I have to say outright that the authors helped clarify this issue for me and in spite of the complex, emotionally issue, I believe I can act with appropriate Christian ethics if a similar event arises in the future.

The authors suggest that to begin this discussion, we must look at Jesus’ emphasis on healing. By doing so, they conclude that “it is fully in keeping with biblical truth, then, to fight illness and forestall death” (p. 239). This  is true, however, the problem arises when we talk about euthanasia in all its forms. There is a helpful chart describing the different types of euthania on page 241: voluntary (patient voluntarily chooses to die), nonvoluntary (patient is incapable of making decision to die), and involuntary euthanasia (killing patient without their consent). There is also the distinction between active and passive euthanasia as difference between acting and omitting action. 

There are three key events that help focus onto the current state of euthanasia in America (I am unsure as to how similar Canadian medical practices are to America). First, the Quilan and Cruzan case of two individuals in vegetative states. This involved “physician and hospital paternalism in imposing too much care, and the solution was defined as an increase in patient and surrogate autonomy and decision making power” (p. 247). There must come a time when the care for human life should turn to compassionately letting patients die. Second, the advocates of active euthanasia was rightly denied by the Supreme Court. “The path ahead for Christian physicians and other concerned Christians is clear – to care for the dying in such a way tha tthe desire for euthanasia is forestalled” (p. 250). Lastly, one must come to grips with the economic injustices to withhold needed care for dying patients.

One must hold the first and second events and their respective issues in tension. They raise issues on both sides of the euthanasia argument and it would not be ethical to push the extreme of either too much patient autonomy that they are able to have active voluntary euthanasia. Again, the proper ethical response is to care for the dying appropriately so that such a case would be rare. It is also our responsibility to promote a just health-care system that would care for the dying in spite of the financial circumstances.