UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2005/03-04
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
March - April 2005
The Travesty of Terri Schiavo
Terri Schindler Schiavo is dead.
The 41-year-old disabled woman finally succumbed to dehydration and starvation in March, 13 days after a Florida circuit court judge ordered that she could no longer receive water and nutrition from any source. In effect and in fact, Judge George Greer sentenced her to an excruciating death.
What was her crime? Apparently, it was being married to a man who had essentially abandoned her by living with another woman for several years, having fathered two children by her. Despite the tremendous conflicts of interest on the part of Michael Schiavo and despite the willingness of Terri’s parents to bear the full responsibility for her care, the judge maintained the position that Terri’s adulterous husband could choose death for Terri.
There are several points that need to be made about the travesty of Terri’s death.
First, Terri was not dying. She was not terminally ill. She was simply disabled, her brain having been damaged under suspicious circumstances. She was not comatose, but responsive to her family and to nurses and she was able to speak a few words. So she was not “allowed” to “die a natural death.” She was killed.
Second, when the judge ordered her feeding tube removed, he also ordered that she could receive no water or nutrition by any means. His order regarding removing Terri’s feeding tube states, “Ordered and Adjudged that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.” When Terri’s parents requested permission to provide Terri with food and water, he responded: “Ordered and Adjudged that Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.”
So Judge Greer decreed that a human being who was not dying could no longer be given water or food period, even though caregivers testified that Terri could swallow. He wanted her to die. This would be like ordering that if a respirator was removed from a patient but she could still breathe on her own, she must be placed in a room with no air in it to ensure death.
Third, when Congress tried to intervene in the case and require that Terri’s case be heard in full (de novo) by a Federal court, those who sought Terri’s death claimed the government had no business being involved in the case. Nonsense.
When this family dispute landed in the courts, the government was involved. When the judicial branch had had its say, the legislative branch (Congress) intervened because it had reason to believe Terri was being deprived of her life by the state without due process (read the 14 th Amendment to the Constitution). The primary role of government is to protect life, and when life is threatened it is not only the right but the duty of a just government to step in.
The fact that the Federal courts refused to follow the law passed by Congress and the fact that Governor Jeb Bush failed to stop this slow execution contributed to Terri’s death. The courts and the governor bear part of the blame for this travesty of justice.
The bottom line in this case is that Terri Schiavo was killed because she was seen as inconvenient by her husband and dispensable by those who favor quality of life over sanctity of life. This case was about Terri’s God-given right to life, not a fictitious right to die.
SES Graduation May 7 th, 10 am
After three long years and lots of work, I will be receiving my Doctorate in Ministry in apologetics degree from Southern Evangelical Seminary on Saturday May 7 th, 2005, at 10 am.
Anyone who would like to attend to cheer on the graduates and their spouses (especially Deborah), please come and join us. There will be a reception following.
SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2005
May 1, 2005
Contending for the Faith: In Defense of Miracles, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 am www.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org
May 7, 2005
G R A D U A T I O N D A Y !! Southern Evangelical Seminary, 10:00 am www.SES.edu
May 8, 2005
Contending for the Faith:In Defense of Miracles, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 am www.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org
May 15, 2005
Contending for the Faith:Understanding Evil, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 am www.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org
May 17, 2005
Postmodernism and the Church , Special Tuesday Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 7:00 – 9:30 pm www.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org
CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH
UNDERSTANDING POSTMODERNISM: PART ONE
Postmodernism.
It’s a movement. It’s a lifestyle. It’s a popular word. It’s a philosophy. It’s a feeling. It’s a worldview. It’s an attitude.
Postmodernism is considered to be all of the above and more. What does this seemingly ubiquitous term mean, and how is it affecting our culture? Is it even affecting (perhaps infecting) the church?
This month we begin a series of columns on postmodernism. We will define and describe it, discuss the background of the movement, compare it with other belief systems, and examine its influence on some Christians. We will also point out and respond to the errors in postmodern thought.
To begin, let’s learn what it is.
WHAT IT POSTMODERNISM?
Trying to define postmodernism can be a little like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. It can be difficult.
But while there are differing definitions circulating, there is a general consensus about some core elements of this philosophy.
First, postmodernism rejects the idea of objective and absolute truth. As Christian author Doug Groothius writes, “Postmodernism, broadly understood, has dispensed with Truth and has replaced it with truths.” Everyone has his own “truth” which may or may not be the same as the “truth” of someone else.
Second, postmodernism can be defined in relation to time in terms of the modern philosophy that preceded it. Michael Kohler says, “Despite persisting controversies as to what constitutes the characteristic traits of the new area, the term ‘postmodern’ is now generally applied to all cultural phenomena which have emerged since the second world war and are indicative of a change in sensibility and attitude, making the present age ‘post the modern.’”
Third, postmodernists claim that we cannot know reality, therefore the concept of absolute truth is a delusion. One philosophy text states, “Postmodernism challenges the fundamental epistemological [knowledge-related] assumption of modern philosophy and science – the possibility of discovering the truth about anything. Postmodernists claim that any attempt to verify the truth of a claim by its correspondence with reality is an impossible illusion.” When knowledge of reality is unattainable, real truth is only a daydream.
Fourth, postmodernism denies “metanarratives” which are comprehensive stories explaining the world. As Jean-Francois Lyotard, the French postmodernist author, writes, “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta-narratives.” There is no all-encompassing explanation of life, there are only competing stories told by various people and cultures. There are no meta-narratives, just many narratives.
Fifth, postmodernists encourage us to embrace clear contradictions. Lyotard declares, “Postmodern knowledge is not simply a tool of the authorities; it refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable.” The world is full of contradictions, so we must simply accept them.
Sixth, postmodern “truth” is constructed by societies using language games. As Groothuis explains, “In a nutshell, postmodernism holds that truth is not determined by its connection with objective reality, but by various social constructions devised for different purposes. Put another way, various cultures have their own ‘language games,’ which describe reality very differently. However, we cannot adjudicate which language game or which linguistic ‘map’ correlates more correctly with reality, since we cannot get beyond our own cultural conditioning. There is no objective reality apart from our language and concepts.” So there is no objective truth, only “truth” that is created within the language of a community.
What is the result of all of this? Groothius points out, “Texts, whether religious or otherwise, do not have any fixed, objective meaning; therefore they are neither true nor false in themselves (Jacques Derrida). Truth is what one’s colleagues will let one get away with (Richard Rorty) or what the power structures deem to be so (Michel Foucault). Finally, there is no ‘God’s eye view’ of anything; therefore, there is no objective truth.”
So in the postmodern view, the Bible is not a book of history and revelation of God dealing with mankind, but a collection of stories not related to reality that can be interpreted in any number of ways. The Constitution and laws passed by Congress have no inflexible meaning, but they can mean whatever the majority of a court wants them to mean. And that meaning can change with another court or even with the same court at a different time. The truths that Thomas Jefferson saw as “self-evident” to all are now reduced to being “court-constructed” by judges.
Those who claim to know absolute truth are called oppressive, imperialistic, even dangerous. While tolerance and inclusiveness are celebrated as the highest virtues, intolerance and exclusivity are loathed as the worst vices. Does this sound familiar?
