Oct 1950 - Editorial

It may be accounted unwise by many Christians that they should make any public comment on the sayings and conduct of men of this world of whom the psalmist says, "Whose portion is in this life." But the teaching of the Bible is for more than Christian folk; the Bible has a world-wide message. It condemns sin in its various manifestations, and provides a remedy for sin in the Person of Christ, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on sin's account.

Paul in Athens was not slow to note the idolatry of that ancient centre of pagan philosophy. It was a city of idols and altars, and amongst its altars was one erected to An Unknown God. This altar with its inscription formed the starting point of the apostle's corrective address, in which he pursued a course of condemning idolatry on the one hand and proclaiming the true God on the other, winding up with the day of judgement and the resurrection of the coming Judge (see Acts 17. 16-34).

As Paul's spirit was stirred in him, so was mine as I read the digest given of Dr. Barnes's (the Anglican bishop of Birmingham) speech before the annual meeting 'of the British Association in Birmingham, as given in an issue of the morning press on September 4th. It was characterized as being one of this bishop's most outspoken speeches. In his analysis of the causes of present world unrest he made the following statement

"I put to you the thought that the old commandment Be fruitfal and multiply and replenish the earth could be deemed divine so long as the world needed more human beings. The primitive need has passed. Now the world needs more good human stock, but inferior stocl"s are increasing far too rapidly, and are a menace to the future."

Evidently this prelate believes that the word of Genesis 1.28 was only a divine word when the human race was young and few in number, but that word spoken by the Creator is no longer His word, it has served its purpose and should be regarded as decadent, not one of God's living oracles. But why does he make this statement suggesting that the word of God in Genesis 1.28 should not now be regarded as divine? He does it to make way for further suggestions of serious moral character :-

I. Birth control.

II. Euthanasia at birth. (Euthanasia means to kill in a painless way.)

III. Euthanasia of the aged.

IV. Sterilisation, but this is only a half-way measure, the ideal is Euthanasia.

Birth control is simply the living arguing against their own being, for if such as argue for it had had this course applied by their parents at the time when they started life, then they had never known life. Rome teaches her followers the procreation of large families, the object being for Roman Catholics to outnumber and out-vote Protestants and so gain for Rome political power. Christian men and women, when they marry, should take the responsibility of having families and not simply marry for carnal enjoyment. A word to the wise is sufficient. The word of the Lord through Paul is

"I desire therefore that the younger 'widows (or women, R. V.M.) marry, bear children, rule the household" (1 Timothy 5.14).

Dangerous as is the practice of birth control, both to health and to a happy married life, Euthanasia is a still more dreadful form of the destruction of life. We used to read newspaper references to Hitler's way of dealing with defectives in Germany. They were said to have been herded to their death in lethal gas chambers. lie was out ruthlessly to clean up Germany of its defective people and to make a pure Nordie stock, a physically super-race of Germanic peoples. But who was he that proposed and followed this course? He was one who co-habited with a woman who was not his wife, and some say that he was a maniac himself. But whatever he may have been, his actions and Dr. Barnes's suggestions are the same in kind; they may differ in degree and in degree only. The infant in Dr. Barnes's view is to have the deadly injection given to it, though it might have lived to have had its physical defects corrected and to have become a useful member of society. Christ cured defectives, but here a so-called Christian bishop says, "Kill them" and kill them before they enter the stream of humanity lest they pollute it. Alas, it is long since it was polluted.

But the aged, too, are to be killed. Euthanasia is a nice word to cover legalized murder. Dr. Barnes says, in encouraging this course, that it is commonplace to hear a man say that "his father lived too long, he would have been happier had death come sooner." We have no doubt that many feel that their parents in sickness or old age are a burden, the reason being lack of love for the parents who brought them up. We have heard of African tribes, that when people got old their "friends" came behind them and clubbed them to death, but who would have thought that a Christian (?) bishop should have been led to suggest such a course? The hypodermic needle is not so crude a weapon as the club, but the end of the use of both is the same-death.

If Dr. Barnes had been like hitler and left Christ out of his philosophy we might have said nothing about his paganism, but to introduce the Saviour's name as he does is unbearable. He says

"Would God, as Christ revealed Him, uader all circumstances ~isapprove of euthanasia?"

"Can we always say that either (suicide or euthanasia) is an affront to God as Christ revealed Him?"

To these is added another question :"Is human life always sacred whatever its quality or circumstances ?

The ancient statute, which apparently has no voice for this bishop, "Thou shalt do no murder," is the guiding light for all who will follow its shining beams throughout all time, and it is murder to kill with intent a human being whether in sound health mentally and physically or defective. How the Lord treated the defectives of His day should be a guide even for men who cannot work miracles. J.M.

unknown | Oct 1950
Editorial