A Nation’s Grief

It’s been a heart-wrenching week for our nation. When the news came out that a young British backpacker had gone missing in Auckland and the Police were concerned for her safety, we all feared the worst. A few days later we heard the words no parent wants to hear: a body had been found. Grace was dead. She had been murdered. She wouldn’t be going home.

Since then came an outpouring of grief rarely seen in this country. There have been vigils, flowers, tributes, as well as countless messages of love and sympathy to the family. Crowds in their thousands turned up in cities across the country – Auckland, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch and Dunedin to grieve and remember a beautiful young woman whose life had been cruelly taken.

“Grace was not born here and only managed to stay a few weeks, but you have taken her to your hearts and in some small way she will forever be a Kiwi.” – David Millane, Grace’s father.

Her death has also served to highlight the domestic violence problem in this country. New Zealand has some of the worst statistics for sexual abuse and violence against women in the OECD. On average, Police attend a domestic violence call-out every 5 minutes. For a country of 4.7 million, that is unacceptable. We cannot continue to shrug this off – not while women are being mistreated and abused.

If you are a Christian reading this, you have a unique opportunity – while it’s still raw, to speak into this. When it comes to the big issues of day, the one’s that everyone is talking about, Christians are often silent. Then they make a fuss about things nobody cares about (a generalization, but true nonetheless). That sends an unspoken message to the world: our faith has nothing to say on the things that matter. We need to reverse that.

Here are some simple and respectful ways you can engage with those in the world with regard to Grace’s murder:

1. Feel their pain

This is where we must start. If you don’t start here, you don’t earn any right to speak. People are hurting. They are hurting for Grace. They are hurting for Grace’s family in the UK. And they are hurting for all women who have been taken advantage of and abused throughout the years in our nation. You need to enter into this hurt and truly feel it.

This is what Jesus did. He didn’t lecture people about morals and ethics or give simplistic answers to complex problems. Often, when encountering grieving people (as with Mary and Martha, who were utterly bereft over the loss of their brother Lazarus), he didn’t say anything. He grieved with them. He felt their pain.

Grace could have been any one’s daughter or sister or close friend. What if it were my daughter who had been murdered? It’s an unbearable thought. But I must think about it, if I am to enter into another person’s grief. That’s what thousands of kiwis have done in attending the numerous vigils up and down the country. Our grief should be no less. Take Detective Inspector Scott Beard, who is heading up the case, as an example. When he appeared on camera where the body was found, he didn’t need to say anything. His face said it all. He cared enough to attend one of the many vigils and stood with the crowd. He didn’t just investigate Grace’s death, he felt it. We would do well to take a feather from his cap.

2. Share their outrage

A moral outrage has been committed. The life of another human being has been taken. And yes, this happens daily, and it is easy to dismiss this one death as there are thousands of other innocent deaths taking place in the world. But we cannot. We must not. The death of every single individual matters because human life matters.

Human life especially matters to God. He made it, and he has ownership of it. Therefore, God is also outraged by Grace’s death. Grace was made in his image and likeness. She displayed – as with all human beings, God-like attributes such as love and mercy and goodness and kindness and wisdom and truthfulness. Grace’s life was sacred, as all human life is sacred. This is why God forbids murder (Exodus 20:13; Romans 13:9). So then, the Christian ought to be even more outraged by Grace’s death, not less.

Furthermore, God is not passive or unresponsive in his outrage. He both condemns and demands justice for murder. He has given laws forbidding murder and will not let murder, or any other sin, off the hook (Numbers 14:18). He has instituted government and civil authorities, which do not bear the sword for no reason (Romans 13:3-4), to punish murder and other wrongdoing, thereby preventing acts of personal revenge. The reason we even have a justice system and police and prison cells is because God is the One who has put them there – for his glory and our good.

And here’s something you might want people to consider: where does this sense of moral outrage come from? And what is it based on? If human beings are simply products of an evolutionary process – time plus energy plus matter; if such things as love and hate and hope and despair are caused merely by atoms and molecules banging into each other, why moral outrage? Why get upset about anything? If we came from nowhere and are going nowhere; if there is no accountability in the afterlife, who is to say anything is evil or anything is good?

We see then ample room for Christians to dialogue with others on this matter.

3. Give them hope

This is what I really wanted to get to. Christianity has something to offer to people who are experiencing great pain that no other religion or philosophy or worldview can offer: HOPE. And that hope is found in the cross. The cross is God’s answer to all pain and suffering and death and loss.

People are dying every day. In fact, they are dying every second. They are not supposed to be dying. That is not the way God intended things to be. But Adam, our first father, sinned by rebelling against God and because we are his spiritual offspring, we by nature also sin. The bible says wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23), so we must all die. But God, in his kindness and mercy, provided a way out of this. He sent his own Son, in the likeness of humanity to die a torturous death on a cross and atoned for our sin. Then three days later he rose from the dead, overcoming sin’s curse. Now all who trust in him have their sin forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life. Death no longer has a claim on them. They will raise to new life.

This gives us hope. It provides hope for those who are suffering, hope for the cancer patient, and hope for the grieving father or mother.

The cross not only give us hope, it also gives us peace. Because with the cross God demonstrated to the world that he takes sin seriously. It must be punished, and it will be punished – either in two ways: by Jesus on the cross or by the individual sinner when he or she faces God after death. Either way, they are paid. No sin – no matter how big or small, is overlooked. Every single one is accounted for.

That grants peace to the one who is suffering unjustly. They can leave it all in the hands of a righteous and holy God, who will do what is right (Genesis 18:25). That means Grace’s parents, should they come to understand and believe this, can eventually find peace. It also means Grace’s murderer, should he repent of his wicked crime and put his trust in Christ, can find peace. Everyone finds peace at the cross – the murderer, the sufferers and the victim alike.

That’s what makes the cross so powerful. Nothing else matches it in its ability to completely transform the human heart and bring about forgiveness and reconciliation.

People might not like the answer that Christianity gives to the “why” of suffering and death. But it’s sure better than the one they don’t have.


Homosexuality and the Church

A massive shift has taken place in our culture over the past decades regarding homosexuality – from condemnation to tolerance, from tolerance to acceptance, from acceptance to approval and from approval to full endorsement.  Today, those who support the LGBT movement are considered enlightened, progressive, open-minded, and inclusive.  Those who dare say anything against it are considered unloving, intolerant, narrow-minded, and bigoted.

That places Christians in a difficult position.  Traditionally the church has understood that the bible teaches homosexuality is sin.  That doesn’t wash very well in our modern, progressive society.  For this reason, many Christians are rethinking their beliefs about the issue.  In 2015 Time magazine published an article entitled, “How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage.”  Support for gay marriage has increased by double digits over the past decade; the fastest change is among younger evangelicals.  Their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.  We’re seeing a similar shift is taking place here in New Zealand.  Last month, Anglican bishops at a synod in Wellington voted in favour of blessing couples in committed same-sex relationships.  Discussions like this are taking place in the Presbyterian church.  Many churches are taking a softer position on the issue or seeking some kind of “third way” option.

To make matters more confusing, vigorous attempts are being made by Christians in the LGBT camp to reinterpret the passages in Scripture that directly address homosexuality.  They claim many of the Old Testament passages are obsolete, that Paul and the early church leaders weren’t as enlightened with regard to sexual orientation as we are today, and all prohibitions against homosexual behaviour refer only to orgies, rape and paedophilia – not loving, consensual relationships.

We need clarity on this issue.  We need clarity for the sake of God’s church, we need clarity for the sake of the gospel, and we need clarity for the sake of those who are living openly gay lifestyles.  Is homosexual activity a sin or something that God blesses, or is it something else?  We’ll look firstly at what the Bible has to say on the subject, then we will consider some of the objections that are raised, and I’ll wind up with a few concluding remarks.

There are five passages in the Bible that speak directly address homosexuality: Genesis 2, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.  I will deal with what I think are the three most controversial passages.

Genesis 2:21-25

God’s plan for the human race involves two people coming together, a man and a woman to form a one-flesh union.  This union is called marriage.  The argument, from the revisionists, is this is not restricted to a man and woman.  The same intimacy, companionship and sharing of life can take place between two men and two women.  God’s purpose for this union, is companionship.  That does not require two people from the opposite sex.  Gay couples make wonderful companions.

That may be true, but this misses what is clearly stated in the text: Eve is not only Adam’s companion, but his opposite.  She is the same, yet she is also very different – physically, genetically, and psychologically.  In the one-flesh union of a man and woman you have a fitting, a connecting, and a uniting that cannot be simulated with a same-sex couple no matter how hard you try.

Furthermore, this interpretation overlooks another divine purpose for marriage: procreation.  God created the man and the woman, so he could bring them together to reproduce (Genesis 1:28).  Marriage, by definition, is a union which produces children.  Homosexual unions by their very nature cannot fulfil this procreative purpose.

Thirdly, it overlooks another very important purpose for marriage: a picture of symbol of Christ and his church.  This is spelled out for us in Ephesians 5:31-32:

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”

Marriage is intended to reflect a heavenly marriage between Christ and his people.  We, his people, are referred to in Scripture as his bride.  A union of two men or two women cannot reflect a union of Christ and his bride.

Romans 1

Paul’s aim in Romans chapter 1 is to lay a case that every single person in the world is guilty before a holy God and in need of salvation.  God has revealed himself clearly in creation but instead of acknowledging God people suppress the truth and makes three exchanges:

  1. They exchange the glory of God for the foolishness of idolatry (v.23)
  2. They exchange the truth of God for a lie (v.24)
  3. They give up natural relations with members of the opposite sex for relations with those of the same sex (vv.26-27)

It is this third exchange that is under consideration for this subject.  Here’s the text in question:

“For this reason God delivered them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The men in the same way also left natural relations with women and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:26–27)

If we follow Paul’s logic, when people reject God, they find themselves craving what they are not naturally designed to do.  They exchange God’s natural design for sex and sexual intimacy for what is unnatural.  Sex is turned into something God didn’t design for it (bear in mind Paul is speaking not so much to individuals as society as a whole.  This is what happens when an entire people group turn away from God.  Individuals get caught up in it).

The revisionist argument is Paul has ungodly homosexual activity in mind.  He’s talking about those who abuse their homosexual preference, who are not satisfied with a long-term, loving relationship and instead lust after new experiences.  The word “unnatural” (ESV “contrary to nature”) however, was used in Paul’s day for any and all homosexual activity.  Plato, Philo and Josephus all used it this way as did the Stoic philosophers.  It’s a hard push to make this text say anything other than what on the surface (as well as underneath), seems obvious.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.”

In these verses Paul describes the kinds of people who – unless they repent, will be excluded from the kingdom of God.  Included in this group are homosexuals – males who have sex with males.  You see the stakes a high here.  The eternal destiny of souls hangs in the balance on this one.

Here again the revisionists step in and say this is not referring to committed, consensual, and loving same-sex relationships.  This is referring to homosexual rape and prostitution.  But the terms that Paul uses are so very clear.  Literally the words translate “bedders of men” or “those who take males to bed” and “being yielded to touch” or “being passive in a same-sex relationship.”  Paul couldn’t be clearer.  He is addressing both active and passive partners in homosexual sex.

At this point it is likely that a few objections are thrown up.  I’ll cover two of the main ones.

Objection #1:  It’s not my fault I’m gay, I was born that way.

You’ve probably heard of the “gay gene” that was discovered in the early ‘90’s.  It was never substantiated.  Recently, the American Psychological Association publication made an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene”:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

That is not to say that someone with same-sex attraction woke up one day and decided that they might start having feelings for people of the same sex.  What it is saying is no one is born homosexual.  You might have a predisposition toward same-sex attraction.  But that doesn’t mean you are hardwired to be homosexual.

We all have predispositions toward things – some of them being undesirable.  It might be a predisposition toward anger and rage or depression or binge-drinking or some kind of addiction.  But does that mean you must act on every one of them?  No, we also have the power of choice.  And sure, the choice not to drink will be more difficult for the person who is prone to binge-drinking than the one who is not.  But it’s a choice that can be made.  Imagine if everyone acted on every impulse and predisposition – what a mess our world would be!

Rosaria Butterfield, a former lesbian who became a Christian chose, in obedience to Christ, to renounce a homosexual lifestyle and is now married with children.  Ed Shaw is an Anglican minister in Bristol, England.  He experienced same-sex attraction since he was young.  In obedience to Christ he has embraced a life of what he calls “hope-filled celibacy.”  Is he still tempted?  Sure he is, just as anyone who is attracted to the opposite sex is tempted.  Ed says he doesn’t allow his desires or sexual orientation to define him.  It’s his identity in Christ that defines him.

Both Rosaria and Ed have made choices to deny self and follow Christ.  One is happily married and the other happily single.  The problem is our world has given sex this exalted status as if that is where we find our purpose and our identity and our fulfillment.  All sexual impulses should be acted on.  If you don’t, you are not being true to yourself.  Well Jesus is the fullest example of what it means to be human, and he never had sex.  Is it really wrong therefore, to say to our Christian brothers and sisters who have same-sex attraction, you don’t need to follow through on those desires?  That there are alternatives; one’s in which God promises blessing and fulfillment?

Objection #2:  Surely a same-sex relationship is pleasing to God if it’s committed and faithful?

A promiscuous gay lifestyle with multiple partners and one-night stands is one thing, but what about two people who love each other and are faithful?  Surely that is OK.  It’s a compelling argument.  But you could say the same thing regarding a young unmarried couple who are sleeping together, or a husband who leaves his wife for another woman.  “He’s much happier now.  He loves her and they are committed.”  Does that make it right?

It’s possible in many areas of life, to demonstrated good qualities while doing something wrong.  Sam Allberry remarks on this matter, “Activity that is faithful and committed is no more permissible in God’s eyes than activity that’s promiscuous and unfaithful.”  Not if God has forbidden it.


Let me say a few words by way of summary and conclusion:

Firstly, as Christians, whenever we find that the Scriptures clash with our culture (or even our desires), it is not Scripture that should change We should change.  Because the bible is God’s Word.  Scripture, not our culture or our desires, has the final word.  God is not a kill-joy.  He knows what he is doing.  His prohibitions and promises are intended for a greater joy.  When God says “no” to something, it is because he intends a better “yes.”

Secondly, we need to stand together against all kinds of hate and bigotry.  Homophobia has no place in our culture and it should equally have no place in God’s church.  We must treat people of the gay community with love and respect.  They are people made in the image of God.  They are individuals for whom Christ died.  Let’s love them into the kingdom.

Thirdly, let’s always remember that the real issue is not whether we are gay or straight.  The real issue is whether we are willing to surrender ourselves to the Lordship of Christ.  The key issue isn’t whether we’re LGBT or straight or anything else. The real problem is that we’re proud, and that we want to be autonomous rather than submissive to God.  The answer, for us all, is repentance and faith.

And that’s where we need to begin – first with ourselves, each and every day, and then with others.  The real issue is what are we doing with Jesus.  That’s always the no.1 issue.  That’s what keeps people from the Kingdom of God.  And it’s what keeps all of us from a life of fulfilment, blessing and abundant joy.

This post was based on a sermon on Homosexuality in the Church.  It is part of a Hot Topics series we are working through at our church.  You can listen to the full audio on our website here. (our apologies: the first 12 min of recording is poor in quality). You can also listen to the discussion forum that followed here.

Here is a video I showed to our congregation the morning I gave this message.  It is from Rosaria Butterfield (whom I referred to earlier) on what most surprised her about Christians when she became one.  It’s really worth your watch.


Evolution v. Creation

The evolution/creation controversy has been going on for the past 200 years and shows no signs of letting up.  There is no end to the number of books and literature written on the subject and the debates between leading atheists and Christians always guarantee a packed house.

You’ll often hear the issue is one of science v. religion.  That’s incorrect.  It’s an issue of theism v. atheism.  This is not a clash between the bible and biology.  It’s a collision of two worldviews or two belief systems.  Darwin’s theory of evolution is just that – a theory.  It’s a belief system, in the same way that Christianity is a belief system.

So, let’s take some time to compare these two belief systems by placing them side by side.  We’ll start with evolution.


The simple definition of evolution is change over time.  A sapling changes as it grows into a tree.  A baby changes into a toddler.  When used in this sense, evolution is not a problem for the Christian.

A second definition of evolution is the process where minor changes take place in an organism or species.  We call that micro-evolution.  This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are “horizontal” in effect, not “vertical”, from one species into another.  Again, this fits perfectly with a world that God created.

The third definition of evolution is macro-evolutionThe theory is, given enough change and time, one species could develop new body parts and become an entirely new organism.  Over millions of years, earwigs become elephants.  This is the evolution that Darwin proposed in his Origin of Species.

Many refinements were made to Darwin’s theory over the years; the most notable being Johann Mendel and his discoveries in the field of genetics and gene mutation.  The result was Neo-Darwinism, a theory that is still taught in classrooms in schools today.  Simply put, Neo-Darwinism teaches that all living things on earth evolved from a single source and driven by genetic mutation and natural selection gave rise, without any divine intervention or guidance, to all the various life forms on earth.  Scientists now had an explanation for the origin of life that didn’t involve God.  Or so they thought.

New discoveries have been made in the field of genetics.  We now know that mutations in genes are harmful.  Many diseases are caused by, or contributed to, by faulty genes.  Because mutations tend to be harmful, our bodies work hard to correct them before the cell can copy them.  The mechanisms of nature, then, work hard against mutation.

Neo-Darwinism also cannot explain the origin of life.  It presumes the existence of reproducing organisms.  Attempts have been made to calculate the probability of random chance causing these basic chemicals to form into the complex chemicals found in living organisms.  The probability of such an event is in the order of 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰.  In other words, not very likely!

There’s a basic axiom of biology and it goes like this: life only arises from life.  No biologist today would dare say that you can get life from anything other than life.  You cannot get living matter from non-living matter.  Something or someone started it all.  And that leads us to the opposing theory for the origin of life: Creation.


The bible teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo – out of nothing, using no pre-existing materials.  Hebrews 11:3 says that:

“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

All Christians believe that God created the universe ex nihilo.  The sticking point is over how long God took to complete creation.  Christians fall into one of two camps – the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and the Old Earth Creationists (OEC).  So let’s have brief look at the alternate views.  Not one of these is without its problems.

The 24-hour theory

This is the oldest and most traditional of interpretations.  It states that the Hebrew word yom – day (day 1, day 2, day 3 etc.) refers to a 24-hour period, or a solar day.  The claim is whenever the word day (yom) is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day.  Another line of support is the Sabbath law laid down in Exodus 20.  Moses’ argument is God worked six days and then rested on the seventh day, therefore man must aslo rest on the seventh day.  That commandment loses all its meaning if Genesis 1 does not refer to a 24-hour period.

There are two main problems however.  The first is a massive amount of activity you have to push into day 6, with Adam naming all the animals being one of them.  The entire animal kingdom, including birds and insects, in one 24-hour day?  Some are doubtful.  The other problem is the geological and cosmological evidence (namely the distance of the stars and the speed of light) work against the universe being created in six 24-hour days.

The gap theory

The gap theory (also known as the ruin-restoration theory) states there is an unknown gap of time between the first two verses of Genesis.  In this “gap”, Satan rebelled causing God to pronounce judgement upon the once perfect earth.  It is this judgement that brought about the conditions described in verse 2 (formless and void; darkness over the earth).  Then in verse 3 God began to transform the earth from a chaotic state to a perfect state.

The gap theory was very popular in the early 19th century when geologists were finding “undeniable evidence” that the earth was billions of years old.  Here was a theory that could fit with that, while still refuting evolution.  The major problem with this view is there is no mention of a gap anywhere in Scripture, nor of God judging the world when Satan fell.

The day-age theory

This theory states the word ‘day’ refers to lengthy periods of time lasting thousands to millions of years.  So each day represents a “day” of undetermined length.  Astronomers have argued for years that it takes a certain amount of time for light to travel a certain distance.  Based on the distance of the stars from the earth, the stars we see today must have been formed billions of years ago.  Thus, the age of the earth must be at least that.

The framework theory

The week of Genesis 1 is a literary device to describe the splendour of creation.  The text is not intended to say anything about how long creation took.  The framework view emphasises the pattern of two triads of days. Days 1-3 describe God’s forming of three distinct spheres – the heavens, the waters and the land whilst Days 4-6 describe the filling of these three spheres – by sun and moon, birds and fish and land animals respectively.  The strongest argument against the framework view is the whole of Genesis 1 suggests a chronological sequence of events, not a literary framework.

Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution or Evolutionary Creationism (the preferred terminology by this group), is an attempt to merge Darwinian evolutionary theory with Creation.  It’s leading proponent, is Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and also a professing Christian.  In his book The Language of God, Collins states that the theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.  He believes God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago and established natural laws to govern it.  Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.

What about Adam and Eve?  Adam was a Neolithic farmer who lived 8-10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent region.  God chose “Adam” to import his divine image upon him.  Genesis 2 speaks of God breathing into Adam’s nostril “the breath of life.”  At that moment, Adam was transformed from being merely a Homo Sapien into being a Homo divinus.  Adam now reflected the imago dei (the image of God) and enjoyed a conscious, loving relationship with God.

Now there are some serious problems with this view.

  1. Firstly, “theistic evolution” is a contradiction in terms. Evolution, as understood by the scientific community is a purposeless, random process that did not have man in view. You cannot have “purposeless purpose.” If God “guides” this process, it is not evolution.
  2. Secondly, there appears to be a concerted effort here to accommodate the bible to fit prevailing scientific theories.  It’s the proverbial tail wagging the dog.  Start with a scientific conclusion and then make the bible fit it.
  3. Thirdly, it seems to be completely out of step with the Bible’s description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7 – “Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.”  That does not sound like God worked through billions of years of evolution in order to find a being that was worthy of being “breathed into.”
  4. Fourthly, Genesis 1:24 says that God made the beasts of the field according to their own kinds. That seems to imply that God was involved in the direct making of the species of beasts and birds and fish.
  5. Finally, there is the problem of death.  If there has been billions of years of life and death and carnage, how do you make sense of Romans 5:12, that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin?”  Death, according to Paul, is the direct result of the fall in sin which happened in a man.  Therefore there is no allowance for billions of years of death in the world leading up to man.


Samuel Emadi posted a helpful article on The Gospel Coalition where he gave seven nonnegotiables in Genesis 1-2 that cannot be compromised if we are to maintain the integrity of the gospel:[1]

  1. God created the world ex nihilo.
  2. God is distinct from his creation (Creator/creature distinction).
  3. God created the world good.
  4. God created the world for his glory.
  5. God specially created Adam and Eve who both bear God’s image.
  6. Adam and Eve are humanity’s first parents.
  7. Adam and Eve are historical figures who really did disobey God in time and space history in the Garden of Eden.

Points 5-7 all deal with the historicity of Adam.  While Christians might have disagreement on the chronology of Genesis 1, the historical truth of Genesis 2-3 is not up for discussion.  Without the special creation of Adam and Eve as God’s image bearers, we lose our identity.  Without a shared parentage, we lose the notion that every human being, regardless of race and ethnicity, is part of a big family.  And without the historical fall of Adam (Point 7), we lose the doctrine of original sin and the Adam-Christ typology.

We can argue all we like about the days in Genesis 1 and the age of the earth.  But when we turn the page to Genesis 2 and 3, there is no argument.  Those are first-order doctrines.

They cannot be compromised, for any reason.

[1] Samuel Emadi, Theological Triage and the Doctrine of Creation: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/theological-triage-and-the-doctrine-of-creation/

This post was based on a sermon on Evolution v. Creation.  It is part of a Hot Topics series we are working through at our church.  You can listen to the full audio on our website here. (our apologies: the first 12 min of recording is poor in quality). You can also listen to the discussion forum that followed here.

The ‘P’ word

Last Sunday I spoke at our church on the subject of Pornography.  Pornography has been around for centuries, but it has never been so widespread and prolific as it is today.  Today we have the internet.  That means any child, teen or adult can instantly stream on to their computer, phone or tablet, graphic sexual images and videos, without anyone knowing about it.

How bad is it?  It’s really bad.  And it’s not just the religious moral right who are concerned.  Health professionals and educators concerned, because they see how it’s messing up peoples’ lives.  Doctors and neurosurgeons are concerned because they are seeing what porn is doing the brain.

Porn Facts & Stats

If you think I’m overstating or overplaying this in some way, have a look at some of these statistics.  These are the most recent I could find.  They are all based on credible studies carried out in 2016 and 2017.

  • In 2016, people watched 4.6 billion hours of pornography at just one website (the biggest porn site in the world). That’s 524,000 years of porn or around 17,000 complete lifetimes.
  • 61% of pornography is watched on a mobile phone. In the United States that is as high as 70%.
  • The average age of first exposure to Internet porn is 11 years old.
  • Pornography has typically been considered the domain of men, but its use is rising among women. Today, 33% of women aged 25 and under go searching for porn at least once per month.
  • 62% of teens and young adults have received a sexually explicit image. 41% have sent one, usually to their boyfriend or girlfriend.
  • 36% of young adults watch pornography to get tips or ideas that they can apply to their own sexual relationships.
  • 96% of young adults are either encouraging, accepting, or neutral in their view toward pornography.
  • 64% of Christian men and 15% of Christian women view pornography at least once a month.
  • Out of 1351 pastors surveyed, 54% said they had viewed internet pornography within the last year, and 30% of these had visited within the last 30 days.

Porn and the Brain

It gets worse.  Pornography is also highly addictive.  Counselors knew this, as they began seeing the very same traits in the people they were counseling as drug addicts.  Neurological research has revealed that the effect of internet pornography on the human brain is just as potent – if not more so, than addiction to cocaine or heroin.

And here’s how it works: deep inside the brain, there’s something called a “reward centre.”  You’ve got one. Your dog has got one.  The reward centre’s job is to release “pleasure” chemicals into your brain whenever you do something healthy (like eating tasty food or doing a workout).  The “high” you get from that chemical rush makes you want to repeat the behaviour.  Thanks to your reward centre, your brain is hardwired to motivate you to do things that will improve your health and chances of survival.  It’s a great system… normally.  The problem is, the brain can be tricked.

When addictive substances are used (like drugs or tobacco), they give the brain a “false signal.”  Since the brain can’t tell the difference between the drugs and a real, healthy reward, it goes ahead and activates the reward centre.  An important chemical is released called dopamine, which makes the brain start developing a craving for the fake reward.  So the consumer keeps pursuing more and more of whatever it is he is craving.

Continued exposure to porn, especially for long periods of time, releases surge after surge of dopamine, giving the brain an unnatural high.  The brain eventually fatigues, limiting the release of dopamine, leaving the viewer wanting more but unable to reach a level of satisfaction.  This is called desensitization.  Everyday pleasures begin to lose its lustre – including sex – and the viewer expands their pornographic tastes and seeks out more novel or harder pornography to get the same arousal.[1]  In her article, “Pornography: The New Narcotic”, Morgan Bennett writes:

Think of the brain as a forest where trails are worn down by hikers who walk along the same path over and over again, day after day. The exposure to pornographic images creates similar neural pathways that, over time, become more and more “well-paved” as they are repeatedly travelled with each exposure to pornography. Those neurological pathways eventually become the trail in the brain’s forest by which sexual interactions are routed. Thus, a pornography user has “unknowingly created a neurological circuit” that makes his or her default perspective toward sexual matters ruled by the norms and expectations of pornography.

Supply cannot keep up with demand.  The porn user goes back, craving more graphic and deviant sexual content in order to re-awaken the craving to “feel the high.”

We must take this issue seriously.  We cannot treat it lightly.  And it’s not just the so-called ‘hard porn’ that’s the problem.  It’s the sexualization of just about everything we see; the movies we watch, the books we read, the images on magazine covers and billboards etc.  We live in a porn-saturated society.

Something better than Porn

Let me tell you about something better than porn.  Porn cheapens sex.  It makes it dirty and grubby.  That’s not how God views it.  God sees sex as something beautiful and wholesome and good.  Take a look at this passage from Genesis chapter 2:

“The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal; but for the man no helper was found corresponding to him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called “woman,” for she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:20–24)

Here we have Adam alone in this beautiful creation God has made.  He has no one to share it with.  So God puts him to sleep, takes a rib from his side and forms the perfect helpmate – a woman (which means in Hebrew, “taken out of man”).  Adam wakes up and the Lord says, “Birthday present Adam.”  Well, he takes one look at her and his heart races.  And there in the garden, a brand-new union is formed, a union that is physical, emotional, spiritual and sexual.  It is called one flesh.

“One flesh” is the relational and physical union of two human beings – male and female where they become one in their hearts and their minds and their souls and their bodies, in a covenant relationship.  And in this relationship, sex – the act of lovemaking is not just a physical act.  That’s what the world wants to make it.  It says, “It’s purely physical. It’s just like eating or drinking.”  You can’t look at sex that way.  You can’t separate it out as just a physical act.  It doesn’t involve one part of you; it involves ALL of you – mind, body, soul and spirit.

Sex was God’s idea.  He created it.  It is God’s good gift to mankind.  Stay within the parameters God designed for it and it is not just good, it is beautiful, wonderful and fulfilling.  Go outside the parameters God set for it and it’s not the same.  It’s not designed for that.

You say, “Well I’m in a committed relationship with my boyfriend or girlfriend and we’re enjoying sex.  I’m sure you are.  But you’re settling for less.  And God can’t bless it.  Sex was intended for a covenant relationship and in that relationship, a man and a woman say to each other, “I don’t just feel things for you, I’m committed to you. I made a promise to God to stick with you. Feeling or no feeling, good sex or bad sex, I’m in. I’m not going anywhere.”  When that kind of commitment is reciprocated, the result is something more wonderful than any mere sexual encounter can promise.

Hope for the porn addict

So what hope is there for the porn addict?  What hope is there for the person who has saturated their minds with graphic images so that even if they were to stop, they have enough in their heads to torment them for a lifetime?  What hope is there for the person who is wrestling with deep feelings of guilt and self-hatred?

God doesn’t hate you.  He hates your sin, but not you.  And he has a provided a wonderful remedy for you.

Jesus was like us in every way, but without sin.  He lived a perfect life, which included a perfect sexual life.  He never had one lustful thought or took one lustful glance.  When he went to the cross, he took upon himself the punishment for our sins – all of them, even the most shameful sexual sins.  The bible says that “He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21)

So, what does that mean for the sexual sinner?  It means this:  God made Jesus, who never looked with lust, to be an adulterer and a porn addict for us, so that in him we might become sexually pure.  So whatever you’ve done, whether it’s fantasizing, looking at porn, sexting, one-night stands, Jesus took all of it. And when we put our trust in Jesus to save us, God writes on our account PAID IN FULL.

That doesn’t mean we stop sinning.  From that point on there is an internal struggle – the flesh against the Spirit.  Every time we face temptation we need to make a decision, to follow the Spirit or the flesh.  The flesh promises temporary pleasure but leaves you empty.  The Spirit promises lasting satisfaction and leaves you full.  Jesus said this:

“Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty again. In fact, the water I will give him will become a well of water springing up in him for eternal life.” (John 4:14)

Porn promises much, but never delivers.  Jesus promises to meet the deepest longings of our hearts.  He promises what porn can’t deliver.  Only when you come to him in faith, and keep coming to him, will your soul thirst be fully quenched.  That’s how you win the battle over lust – by fighting fire with fire.  When you see that what Jesus promises is far more satisfying and liberating and exhilarating than the cheap thrill of sexual pleasure, you’re on the way to being finally set free.

[1] Judith Reisman, “The Science Behind Pornography Addiction,” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, November 18, 2004.

This post was based on a sermon on Pornography.  It is part of a Hot Topics series we are working through at our church.  You can listen to the full audio on our website here.  You can also listen to the discussion forum that followed here.

You might also want to have a look at this video from Fight the New Drug website.  It’s a story about Matt Harrow who was exposed to pornography at a young age and had a serious struggle with porn for many years.  After meeting the love of his life and having a wonderful honeymoon, he thought the problem was cured.  Then one day, when his guard was down, he fell and found himself in a dark hole once again.

Here are some helpful resources for keeping porn-free:

Here’s a book I highly recommend for those who want to be set free from pornography:




A couple of weeks back I watched a Sunday documentary about a downhill mountain bike rider who is causing a bit of a stir in the sporting community.  Anton Weatherly rode as a male until December last year.  His performance was average, crossing the finish line midway in the field.  Then Anton switched genders and became Kate and started riding in the women’s division.  In January she raced in the New Zealand national women’s championship in Wanaka and won by almost 13 seconds.  The other female riders are crying foul.

You can hardly blame them.

Sporting bodies in NZ and worldwide are grappling with how to accommodate transgender athletes.  How do you support human rights and diversity while ensuring a level playing field?  No one knows.  Like the saying goes – it’s complicated.  The first thing we need to do is get our heads around what transgenderism is all about.  Let’s start with some terminology.

Transgender terminology

When we use the word gender, we are referring to the social and cultural aspects of being male or female.  Think masculine verses feminine; facial hair verses lipstick.

 Gender identity is a person’s internal sense of their own gender, whether male or female or something else.  If I asked you the question, “Do you sense you are male or female?” (not, do you look male or female), I’m enquiring about your gender identity.

The term Transgender (the “T” part in LGBT) is an umbrella term to describe a person who experiences a gender identity that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth.

 Gender dysphoria is the term used to describe a person experiencing distress or discomfort because of a mismatch between their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity.  They often use phrases such as being “trapped in the wrong body.”

Tansitioning refers to the steps a trans person takes to live in the gender with which they identify.  Sometimes this involves hormone therapy, medical intervention, surgery, and almost always some kind of counseling.

If you want to know where the transgender trend is heading, just look at the social networks.  Facebook, which is on a mission to be the most “progressive” social network on the web now has 71 gender options to choose from.  They’ve been outdone by Tumblr which has at least 300 (to date).

How did we get to this?

The answer lies where all societal changes lie – in a worldview or a belief system.  Everyone has a worldview.  It is what we use to make sense of life.  There’s a belief system driving transgenderism.  And you need to understand it (I wrote about this in a previous post on Love Thy Body, so I apologize if it appears that I am repeating myself).

Back in the 1960’s and 70’s there was a very well-known Christian thinker and apologist by the name of Francis Schaeffer.  Schaeffer recognized a deep division running through all Western thought and culture, between science and morality; between facts and values.  This division has its roots in the period of the Enlightenment when intellectuals began to put human reason over and above divine revelation.  He illustrated it with the metaphor of a two-story building:

Private, Subjective, Relativistic
Objectively true, Testable

In the lower story is empirical science – that which is objectively true and testable.  On the upper story is the realm of theology and morality, which is considered subjective and relative.  When you hear people say, “That can be true for you but not for me,” you’re looking at the upper story.

Here is the same fragmented worldview using different terms:

Private, Subjective, Relativistic
Objectively true, Testable

Nancy Pearcey points out in her book Love Thy Body this two-story worldview is the underlying current beneath many of the social issues in our society.  What has happened, she explains, is our concept of what it is to be a human being has also become fragmented into an upper and lower story, with the body in the lower story and the real person in the upper story.  The two-story worldview for them looks like this:


So, you no longer have an integrated but fragmented human being, in which the body is treated as something different from and in some cases disconnected from the authentic self.

How is it possible people think this way?  Because of our dualistic worldview, spawned in the period of the enlightenment, nurtured in our education system, and now bearing fruit in society.  For those who saw it coming, it’s of no surprise.  But it is also tragically wrong.  And I want to tell you why.

Real answers from a Caring Creator

True freedom is not found in asserting our independence and trying to be something we are not made to be.  True freedom is found in being who we are.  Vaughn Roberts describes it this way:

“A fish that decides to make a bid for freedom by jumping out of the water will not be free – because it is created to live in the environment of water. And as soon as we try and become what we are not, far enjoying freedom, we can’t expect to flourish.”

So then, who are we?  How should we as human beings view ourselves?  God, our Creator reveals that to us in the opening pages of the Bible in Genesis chapter 1.

“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26–27)

The Bible tells us we are first and foremost creatures.  We are not machines.  We are not just atoms and molecules banging into each other.  We are secondly, embodied creatures.  Our bodies are an essential part of our true selves.  God sees us as an integrated whole.  Third, we see that we are embodied sexual creatures, in the form of male or female.

You might have heard of the “brain-sex” theory.  It claims that sex differentiation of the genitals and the brain takes place at different stages of fetal development[1].  OK, so they are partly right in that.  We had scans on all our kids and their biological sex wasn’t determined until a later stage.  But then they go on to say that a baby in the womb can be developed with male genitals and a female brain.

There are over 37 trillion cells in my body.  There are 46 chromosomes in every human cell. ‘Two of these are specialized chromosomes called sex chromosomes.  I have one X and one Y chromosome in every cell of my body (if you are a female you have two X’s).  These remain in my cells from conception until death and do not change.  I am “hard-wired” to be a male down to every cell in my body.

You say, “Well if that’s true – if we are really ‘hard-wired’ to be male or female since birth, how is it that some people seem to be genuinely struggling with their identity?  Why the disorders?  Why do some men feel they are women trapped in a man’s body and some women feel they are really men trapped in a woman’s body?”

The answer lies in Genesis chapter 3: The Fall.  Sin has corrupted us in two ways: physically, with our bodies and psychologically, with our minds.  The result is we have disordered bodies.  We have sickness and disease.  There are corruptions in the genetic code causing all kinds of defections and abnormalities in our bodies.  But we also have disordered minds.  We struggle with stress and depression and all kinds of mental health issues.  None of us are immune.  Some of us are born with a predisposition toward addiction or schizophrenia or OCD or ADHD.  Some experience gender dysphoria.  It’s all part of the fall.  And it’s not right to point to one group of people over here and say, “you’re queer” or “you’re not normal” because, since the fall, none of us are normal.  We have dysfunctions of one kind or another.  So we need to be understanding to people who are experiencing these strange feelings.

The question we want to ask next is – is there any hope for them (and us!)?  Has God offered any solution?  Yes, he has!  He put into plan something wonderful: a rescue mission, to set right all that had gone wrong.

God sent his very own Son into this world to redeem us.  Jesus Christ was born as a human being – a wonderful affirmation that God values the human body.  He lived in perfect submission to his heavenly Father.  Then he took our place on the cross, bearing our sin, and taking the place we deserve for punishment for our sins.  On the third day, he rose from the dead – bodily.  Again, another powerful statement about the importance of our human bodies.

After his resurrection Jesus told his followers to take the good news to the world: every man, woman, and child can be completely forgiven and renewed, simply by turning from their sin and rebellion and putting their trust in Jesus to save them.  They will, in return, receive a new identity, a new mind, new desires, a new citizenship, a new family (the family of God), and one day, a new resurrected body.

That doesn’t mean that everything changes completely overnight.  The change is sometimes slow, and agonizing.  There will be an ongoing struggle with our disordered bodies and disordered minds.  Some of us struggle with depression and anxiety.  Others struggle with addictions and lust.  There are even those who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.  God does not promise to take these things away immediately.  But he does give us His Holy Spirit, which gives us the power to work on them.  He calls us to deny some of those desires, take up our cross and follow Him.  There is pain involved with that.  But the temporary pain is worth every much the final gain.


If you are reading this and you struggle with some kind of sexual disorder – whether it be pornography or same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, Jesus’ message to you is the same for everyone:

“Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take up my yoke and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28–29)

I’m not telling you, “Get your sexual disorders sorted out and then come to Jesus.”  That’s not how it works.  I am saying, “Come to Jesus and he will start to put you together again.”

Jesus the rescuer has come.  He has died, he has risen, and he has sent his Spirit to make it possible for us to be changed and transformed to what God, in the beginning, intended us to be – men and women who are made in the image of God, wholly integrated in soul, mind and body.

That’s where I am convinced our ultimate freedom and happiness is found.

[1] Mark A. Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, p.67.

This post was based on a sermon on Gender Identity.  It is part of a Hot Topics series we are working through at our church.  You can listen to the full audio on our website here.  You can also listen to the discussion forum that followed here.

Here’s the Sunday documentary I referred to in my introduction.  It is interesting viewing and runs for around 12 minutes.

Love Thy Body

LOVE your body?  Somehow it just doesn’t seem to fit right, especially if you happen to be a Christian.  Christians are not meant to love their bodies.  They are meant to beat them into subjection (as least, that’s the impression I got as a new believer).

But it’s a very fitting title for the book from which I want to talk about.  Nancy Pearcey, a leading Christian thinker and author, has put together a very compelling case for providing a clear, biblical answer for a confused and mixed-up generation regarding matters of sex and the body as well as numerous other ethical issues we are faced with today.

I wasn’t actually looking for this book.  I bought it almost by accident when searching for good resources to prepare for a new series we are currently going through at our church.  We are covering some of the “biggies” like euthanasia, homosexuality, suffering and evil, pornography and transgenderism.  I’d read Total Truth, another of Pearcey’s works and thought this would be a helpful contribution to my study.  It was more than that.  It completely altered my thinking and provided a whole new framework for understanding where our society is at today in terms of its worldview.

The introduction and first chapter, “I Hate Me” laid the foundation for the rest of the book.  Once I had that in my head everything else fell into place.  In the introduction she writes:

“The problem is many people treat morality as a list of rules.  But in reality, every moral system rests on a worldview.  In every decision we make, we are not just deciding what we want to do.  We are expressing our view of the purpose of human life.” – Nancy Pearcey

To be strategically effective therefore, she says we must address what people believe about the nature and significance of life itself.  In other words, we must engage their worldview.

Pearcey then unpacks that worldview.  In the past, she explains, reality for most people consisted of a natural order and a moral order, integrated into one unity.  But in our modern age, people think that reliable knowledge only exists in the natural order – that which is scientifically proven and can be tested.  Where does that leave moral truth?  It consists merely of personal preferences and feelings.

Some years ago, there emerged a Christian thinker and philosopher called Francis Schaeffer.  Schaeffer recognized this divide running through all Western thought and culture.  He illustrated it with the metaphor of a two-story building.

Private, Subjective, Relativistic
Objectively true, Testable

In the lower story is empirical science – that which is objectively true and testable.  On the upper story is the realm of theology and morality, which is considered subjective and relative.  When you hear people say, “That can be true for you but not for me,” you’re looking at the upper story.

Here is the same fragmented world view seen using different terms:

Private, Subjective, Relativistic
Objectively true, Testable

What has happened, Pearcey explains, is our concept of what it is to be a human being has also become fragmented into an upper and lower story, with the body in the lower story and the real person in the upper story.  The two-story worldview for them looks like this:


So, you no longer have an integrated but fragmented human being, in which the body is treated as something different from and in some cases disconnected from the authentic self.

You say, “So what does that mean about anything?”

  • It means a baby in a mother’s womb is not a person until a certain stage (determined arbitrarily it seems, by our culture).  It’s just a body, a fetus; a thing.  It has no personhood.  It is still on the bottom story.
  • It means, if you are mentally disabled, and you have limited neocortical functioning, and can’t make decisions or exercise self-awareness or plan for the future (the upper story), then you don’t qualify as a person, and may be eligible for euthanasia.
  • It means, in the hook-up culture today, what you do with your body sexually does not necessarily have any connection to who you are as a person.  It’s just sex.  It’s just something you do, like eating or drinking.
  • And for the transgender person, it means you have a sex assigned at birth – male or female.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.  Because the “real you” – the authentic self, has no connection to the body.  The real person resides in the mind, will and feelings.  That’s why transgender people often say they are trapped in the “wrong body.”

How is it possible people think this way?  Because of our dualistic worldview, spawned in the period of the enlightenment, nurtured in our education system, and now bearing fruit in society.  For those who saw it coming, it’s of no surprise.  Once you understand the worldview, it makes total sense.

But it is, as Pearcey states, a destructive and dehumanizing view of the body.  The Bible gives us a vastly different view.  The human body is the handiwork of a wise and loving God.  Mankind is the pinnacle of his creative work.  He forms him from the dust of the earth and breathes into him and he becomes a nephesh, a living soul (Gen 2:7).  Man is an integrated whole – soul, mind and body.  He is, in mind and body, an image bearer of his Creator.

Pearcey summarizes with this,

“The Bible does not separate the body off into a lower story, where it is reduced to a biochemical machine.  Instead the body is intrinsic to the person. And therefore it will ultimately be redeemed along with the person – a process that begin even in this life.

A biblical ethic is incarnational.  We are made in God’s image to reflect God’s character, both in our minds and in our bodily actions. There is no division, no alienation.  We are embodied beings.”

You see then, what this means.  It is a game-changer in terms of how we view all the difficult ethical issues of our day, from euthanasia, abortion, and sexuality.  Christians need not be throwing their arms up in despair.  Armed with helpful resources such as this, we can tackle these issues head-on, wisely, respectfully and biblically.

There is so much about this book I haven’t said.  This post doesn’t really do it justice.  I would encourage you to get this for your shelf.

Better still, put it on your coffee table for all to see.

Nancy Pearcey is considered by The Economist as “America’s pre-eminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual.”  She presently serves as professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University.  She is co-author with Chuck Colson of How Now Shall We Live? and is the author of several other books including Total Truth, The Soul of Science, and Saving Leonardo.  

The Right to Die


Last Wednesday, a distinguished scientist bid farewell to his home in Australia to fly half way across the world to Switzerland, where it is legal to end your life.  He had no terminal illness nor was he suffering from any disease.  He’s just old – 104 years old, to be exact.  The tipping point for him was his diminishing independence.

“I’m not happy. I want to die. It’s not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented.” – David Goodall

Prevented?  I found that interesting.  No one is preventing him from dying.  He will die; and most likely fairly soon.  Age will take him.  And if he is under medical care, he will die peacefully and comfortably.  So then, what’s the problem?  The problem is he wants to die when he says so.

It’s another example of mankind’s desire for personal autonomy, only to the extreme.  It is human rights pushed too far.  Most of us in the West are privileged to live in a democracy.  We all have certain rights –  irrespective of our age, ethnicity, culture, religion or sex.  But those rights only go so far.  We don’t have “rights” to do anything we want.  The law places limits on us.  And where the law doesn’t place limits, God does.  We don’t decide, for example, the day we are born.  Nor are we to decide the day we die.  Unless of course we override God’s plan and do what we want – which seems to be what is going on here.

This whole issue is receiving a lot of media attention in our country lately with the latest End of Life Choice Bill, which had it’s first reading in Parliament and is now being presented to the Justice Select Committee.  Currently, all forms of euthanasia including Voluntary Euthanasia (VE), Non-voluntary Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are illegal in New Zealand.  The administration of drugs with the intention to relieve pain however (even though the effect will result in the shortening of life), and the withdrawal of life-preserving medical treatment that is not accomplishing anything useful, is lawful.

The Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine (ANZSPM 2013) states:

“Treatment that is appropriately titrated (measured and adjusted) to relieve symptoms and has a secondary and unintended consequence of hastening death, is not euthanasia.”

Doctors and palliative care-givers administer heavy pain medication with the intent of relieving suffering.  They may foresee that same medication will eventually bring about an early death but that is not their primary intent.  There is a clear difference and our legal system recognizes the difference.

There are a number of sound, rational, and practical arguments against euthanasia.  One is the risk of abuse.  Those vulnerable to a law change include the poor, the elderly, the handicapped and disabled, the emotionally distraught and so on.  Along with this is the slippery slope argument, which states once society accepts one form of termination of human life with a given set of conditions, it will be difficult or impossible to confine VE to those conditions.  Another is the ‘right to die’ could soon become a ‘duty to die.’  The elderly and terminally ill may come to feel euthanasia would be the right thing to do as they do not want to be a burden to their family. In fact, according to a health report from the State of Oregon (where VE has been legalized), one in three patients requesting euthanasia reported that part of their motivation was because they felt a “burden on family and friends.”

The concern is a subtle coercion placed on the vulnerable to end their lives.  In the Netherlands, where VE has been legalized for over 30 years, if a patient does not want to be killed by their doctor, they must state it clearly orally and in writing, well in advance.  A change in law allowing people to ‘opt in’ for VE or PAS will eventually become so normalized that people will feel pressured not to ‘opt out.’

But there is a greater and more powerful case against euthanasia.  It has served as the basis for the moral and ethical code in our country since it’s foundation.  It is called the sanctity of human life, which states that all human life, in whatever state or condition, able or disable, is of intrinsic value and cannot be taken.

In Genesis chapter one, verses 26-27 we find this:

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.”

We are image bearers – made in the likeness of God. This includes the mentally impaired, the deformed, the diseased and the terminally ill. Each one, in some way, bears the image of God.

The bible gives us another reason we must not take human life: God alone has authority of life and death. Deuteronomy 32:39 states,

“See now that I alone am he; there is no God but me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from my power.” 

Psalm 139:6 says that God ordained every one of our days before even one of them began.  That means we cannot add or detract one second of our lives beyond what God has decided.

And as to the matter of suffering – the bible has something to say about that too.  Listen to what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 5:3-5

“And not only that, but we also rejoice in our afflictions, because we know that affliction produces endurance, endurance produces proven character, and proven character produces hope. This hope will not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” 

Suffering develops character.  Suffering reminds us of the temporal nature of this world and causes us to long for the new world to come.  Suffering teaches us about mercy and kindness and compassion.  In fact, the word ‘compassion’ literally means to “suffer with.”  True compassion is the willingness to suffer on behalf of others and helping them to bear their burdens.

It saddens me to see an individual like David Goodall, who has lived a long and healthy life and who is not suffering from any illness, wanting to take his own life.  If only he knew how valuable he was in the sight of God, that God knows him intimately since the day he was formed in his mother’s womb, and that Jesus has provided a way for him know and love God, have his sin forgiven and receive eternal life.

Perhaps that might have changed things for him.  For death would not be the end, but a doorway to a new beginning.

Note: This post was based on a sermon on Euthanasia from our “Hot Topics” series.  You can listen to the full audio on our website here.  You can also listen to the discussion forum that followed here.