A key quote:

Because religious patients often trust in God’s sovereignty and an afterlife, “one might expect them to be more accepting of death and let nature take its course at the end of life, rather than pursuing very aggressive treatments,” said Dr. Andrea Phelps, lead author on the study and senior medical resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Such a view, she said, reflects a commonly held assumption about how religious patients approach the prospect of imminent death.

But, Phelps added, a few reasons might help explain why religious cancer patients commonly opt for aggressive care in their final days. Among the possibilities:

—faith leads to optimism, even when a prognosis is bleak;

—faith gives purpose to suffering, and in turn helps patients muster stamina for invasive treatments;

—beliefs about sanctity of life may give rise to a quest to prolong life at almost any cost.

“We were concerned” by the study’s findings, Phelps said. “We are worried because aggressive care, at least among cancer patients, is a difficult and burdensome treatment that medically doesn’t usually provide a whole lot of benefit.”

My question: should Christians ‘fight’ when it comes to disease? Often when someone gets very ill, believing family members will talk about ‘let’s fight this’ or ‘you’re going to fight this, aren’t you?’

In recent months I have witnessed, directly or indirectly, well-meaning family members encouraging terminally ill believers to keep on fighting, even in cases that are virtually impossible of survival (from the human perspective).

• The recurrence of a very aggressive cancer where treatment involved the very nauseating chemo therapy treatments and debilitating radiation, only to end in death after a miserable last 10 to 12 months of life.
• The death of an elderly believer who led a full and fruitful life of ministry, but in dying days was encouraged by a zealous doctor to ‘have hope’ and ‘fight’ for one or two more years of life. This gave false hope to family members only to end in death after about eight weeks.
• A dying saint who was urged by family members to just fight, and keep trying, even though a debilitating cancer simply sapped her of energy and will to live – a cancer that was untreatable by any therapy, and ended with the saint in heaven.

I realize that there is a culture of death in the medical profession in some circumstances. I am not talking about some kind of ‘quality of life’ issue here, i.e., arguing that we shouldn’t be aggressive simply because so-and-so doesn’t have good ‘quality of life’ prospects. I am talking about cases where the actual prognosis is death, even with heroic measures by doctors and vigorous attempts to prolong life at all costs. Should our ‘pro-life’ beliefs include a fanatical attempt to defy the odds by medical means?

Certainly God can cure anyone. But in the cases I mentioned, it clearly was not His will to do so. It was His will to bring these saints home.

Suppose the individuals in these cases, rather than pursuing radical treatments, simply left the case in the Lord’s hands. Suppose they lived a while longer? Well, praise the Lord, if so. But suppose they died without anguish and suffering in the last months of their life? Wouldn’t that be better for them and their families?

These are not easy questions and I am not proposing a ‘one answer fits all’ for any individual case. But we must use wisdom in our own decision making and counselling ministries.

UPDATE: I promised an update in the comments below. On the CT blog (all disclaimers apply!) a member of the research team mentioned in the article responds. It is worth reading, but here is a quote:

Based on this, we hypothesize that there is a gap about formation of death for religious communities. It would appear that Christians as a pattern do not talk about death, model a good death, or articulate the characteristics of faithful dying. Terminal patients and their families are left alone in making these decisions — and there is a significant minority (we are guessing between 10-30%) who are receiving aggressive care at the end of life because they do not know how to navigate the spiritual intersection involved in the complexities of medical decision making.

Among others, Deepak Chopra(!) comments on what he calls  a “new evangelicalism”.

In light of recent discussions regarding the social activism of some, one of his comments is interesting.

Chopra, commenting on one of the doctrinal comments of the manifesto, says:

3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
–This point, which demands rebirth in the holy spirit as the only way to salvation, contradicts the broad Protestant social movement toward good works (endorsed even by Pope Benedict on his recent American visit) and returns to a quasi-medieval belief that the elect are chosen by God and the non-elect damned to hell. Yet if our good works can’t contribute to salvation, why should our bad deeds affect it, either?

Another comment comes from the well known professor, Martin Marty. He says, “Evangelicals are Not Weird“. Marty says:

The most helpful, though not original, feature of the Manifesto is to show that the Evangelicals represented in it are more and other than scrubbed-up and toned-down ex-Fundamentalists.

He goes on to say:

While the drafters and all fair historians and lexicographers would point out, “evangelical” connects with the Christian gospel in all ages. Three times by my count their word became a party label.

His ‘three times’ would be

1. The Reformation (because of their emphasis on the gospel of grace vs. the ‘perceived’ legalism of Catholicism – ‘perceived’ is Marty’s word)
2. The 19th century anti-slavery movement and attendant vigours of the evangelical church
3. The 1940s-1950s New Evangelical movement

Here is his whole comment on that last point:

The third time, in America post-1942/3, when they organized a National Association of Evangelicals they criticized the hardest-line fundamentalists, kept to their doctrines, but became ‘Neo-Evangelicals.” Think Billy Graham, who was converted by a fierce fundamentalist and spent his later life showing openness to many kinds of Christians and friendliness to those in other faiths–without compromising his own. The early stage was mainly “otherworldly,” non- or anti-political, but after around 1980s many were organized into what became the Christian Right, which had a narrower agenda than the Manifesto writers appreciate.

And one last quote, Marty’s comment on the ‘social’ aspect of the manifesto:

6. And this is huge, and being recovered: evangelicals believed and believe that, after being “saved by grace through faith” they were and are to make faith active in love, through works of mercy and, though less clearly, works of justice. Today many new energies–including embrace of environmental and justice issues–moves evangelicals.

As always, these perspectives from outside fundamentalism (and even outside Christianity) often cause one to shake the head at the naive foolishness of some so-called fundamentalists who want to broaden the tent and make common cause with folks who really don’t share a biblical agenda. Broadening one’s tents always leads to increased pressure to broaden even further. Taking away restraints only means that the new restraints are open to question.

I am not sure where Jon and Champ will end up on this question, but for myself I see  no mandate at all for social action as a ministry of the church (except perhaps direct help for church members in crisis). As a Christian individual, I believe I should be kind and helpful to all as I come in contact with needs, but this really isn’t the mission of the church.

While I was working away on Romans today, I ran across a little essay in one of my commentaries on the social gospel. It is by William R. Newell, one-time assistant superintendent of Moody Bible Institute (under R. A. Torrey) and a fine Bible teacher and evangelist in his own right.

Newell left Moody in 1910 to take a Presbyterian pastorate in Florida. He published his commentary on Romans in 1938. He died in 1956.

This essay is from the Romans commentary.

William R. Newell, Romans verse by verse, pp. 46-51

TO THE PREACHERS OF “THE SOCIAL GOSPEL”

This is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came to reform society (whatever “society” may be!); that He came to abate the evils of selfishness, give a larger “vision” to mankind; and, through His example and precepts, bring about such a change in human affairs, social, political, economic and domestic, as would realize all man’s deep longings for a peaceful, happy existence upon earth, ushering in what these teachers are pleased to call, “the Kingdom of God.”

1. Now, in the first place, Jesus Christ came to save sinners, not “society.” He said, “The Son of Man hath authority on earth to forgive sins.” Now, sins are individual transgressions against a personal God; there is no such thing in Scripture as these social-gospellers dream of, — a condition of “society” to be “changed” or “ameliorated.” All that really exists is the guilt of a vast number of really guilty sinners. “Society” does not exist before God at all; and it is a vain delusion of the devil that sins are dealt with en ~nasse.

2. Sinners, having been pardoned, find themselves in a blessed fellowship, a really heavenly thing, constituted by the Holy Spirit, who indwells each of them. But to confuse this fellowship with what these social-gospellers call “society,” is to forget that “except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

3. It flatters men’s vanity, of course, and shelters them from conviction, to be dealt with as “society,” and not as guilty souls needing personal pardon through the shed blood of Christ. Therefore this gospel (which is not a gospel, but a lie, a delu­sion of Satan), draws together vast concourses of unconverted men and women, “church-members” and “non-church-mem­bers.” Its preachers are plausible and popular, for if “society” is going to be saved in a mass, individual repentance need not be mentioned. The Jesus of these men, — the Stanley Joneses, the Sherwood Eddys, the Frank Buchmans, the Bishop McCon­nells, the Kagawas, and a whole host of drifters and on-the-fencers, is not the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world by an atoning sacrifice, not the One despised, forsaken, smitten of God, of the fifty-third of Isaiah! He is not at all the substitutionary Sacrifice drinking the cup of wrath for man’s guilt! But He is “the Christ of the Indian Road” — or the American road, the Canadian road, the English road, as you please; walking by the wayside, teaching the multitudes, as in the Four Gospels. BEFORE HE WAS REJECTED AND DIED. He is not the RISEN CHRIST, with all power in heaven and earth given unto Him, pouring forth the Holy Spirit and doing mighty works, as in the early church days.

I affirm that the present day popular preachers DO NOT KNOW what human guilt, before God, is! DO NOT KNOW that Christ really bore wrath under God’s hand for the sin of the world! DO NOT KNOW that He was forsaken of God, as the whole race, otherwise, must have been! I affirm that they are preaching as if an unrejected, uncrucified Christ were still being offered to the world! They preach the “character” of Jesus, saying “nice things” of Him, and telling people to “follow His example”: while the truly awful fact that Christ “bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” that He was “wounded for our transgressions,” that He was “forsaken of His God”; that “God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up,” — and that “for our trespasses,” is never told to the poor, wretched people! Nor are they warned of that literal lake of fire and brimstone into which “every one not found written in the book of life” will be cast, and that forever.

One look into the lost eternity to which these last-days “preachers” are leading those who follow them, renders even the briefest consideration of these men who dare to call them­selves “preachers of the gospel,” beyond all enduring. As Jeremiah cries:

“Concerning the prophets. My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of Jehovah, and because of His holy words.

“Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah. They say continually unto them that despise Me, Jehovah hath said, Ye shall have peace; and unto every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his own heart they say, No evil shall come upon you… Behold, the tempest of Jehovah, even His wrath, is gone forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the wicked’ … I sent not these prophets, yet they ran: I spake not unto them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, then had they caused My people to hear My words, and had turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings” (Jer. 23.9,16,17,19, 21,22).

And Ezekiel:

“And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of Man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own heart, Hear ye the word of Jehovah: Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Woe unto the foolish prophets, that fol­low their own spirit, and have seen nothing! … They have seen falsehood and lying divination, that say, Jehovah saith; but Jehovah hath not sent them: and they have made men to hope that the word could be confirmed. Have ye not seen a false vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, in that ye say, Jehovah saith; albeit I have not spoken?

“Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there is no peace; and when one buildeth up a wall, behold, they daub it with untempered mortar: say unto them that daub it with untempered mortar, that it shall fall” (Ezek. 13.1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12-14,15).

And,

“When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33.8,9).

You may say, Those were Old Testament prophets — Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and Those were messages to the Jews. Wait till you meet, as you will shortly, the God Who inspired these prophets. Let us see what you will say to Him, — you who pro­fess to preach the gospel of Christ. and yet preach it not!

And Paul saith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” “For I delivered unto you first of all that… Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip­tures, … that He was buried; and that He hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” This very declaration of the gospel after Christ died, is that atoning death of His. When you leave that out, and prate about the “beautiful life” of Jesus, you are deceived by the devil and are a deceiver of other souls.

4. We know that this “social gospel,” the false news that humanity is to be reached in the mass, and not by individual conviction, individual faith, individual new birth by the Holy Spirit, is a lie, because Scripture directly contradicts any such notion:

Hear Paul: “In the last days, grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away!” (2 Tim. 3.1-5).

Peter also: “In the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Pet. 3.3-4).

Paul again: “Evil men and imposters shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3.13). And our Lord plainly says:

“In the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17.29-30).

How dare you call yourself a believer of Scripture, while you deny such plain words as these, and preach a fool’s dream, that the world, with the devil still here, its prince and god; and man still unregenerate — that the world will by some “social gospel” gradually change in character? It is a lie! and those that preach it, preach a lie. The words of God shall be fulfilled, and not the mouthings of a McConnell or the fumings of a Fosdick.

And, O social gospeller, if you are looking for a changed state of “society,” who is going to help you bring it in? The Holy Ghost will not, for He has inspired men to write that the very opposite will occur! that men shall hate one another, and that the world will grow worse, to the very return of Christ. And we know that enlightened Christians will not go about to bring in what they know from God’s Word is not coming in!

And ignorant Christians cannot help you — for they know not how. And we know that this selfish world will not go about to bring in your social dream: for you and we know they are set on their own interests, and will remain so. And Satan cannot do it, if he would!

So, O social gospeller, who would go about to bring in a “new social order,” you are left to do it yourself, without that regeneration by the Holy Spirit which alone truly saves men; without any message of pardon for guilty souls through the shed blood of a Redeemer (for you do not preach that!) with­out the help and prayers of true believers: for, these pray, “Thy Kingdom Come”; but they know that Christ must return to earth to bring in that Kingdom; and they know that all other promises are false and lying hopes!

~~~

I just love Newell!

Some of our mild-mannered modern sophisticates, who know better, will probably blanch at his manner, but he was a man who knew well how to call a spade a spade. May God give us more Newell’s and less Nancy Nuance’s.

My wife returned to us this week after six weeks assisting in the care of her dying mother. My blogging has been light because I have been pulling double duty (well… maybe only one-and-a-half duty) at home while she has been gone. Precious little time is left for reading, thinking, writing and especially blogging when I am left on my own for an extended period of time! But that is another post.

The whole episode of the last six weeks heightened my regard for my dear wife. She selflessly committed herself to the needs of her mother during this time. Our two youngest and I went to visit with her and grandma for one week at the end of October. I was able to observe my wife’s efforts first hand. Her mother is extremely uncomfortable as she grows steadily weaker. She often wakes disoriented and confused. My wife would get up with her mother, assist her to get to the bathroom, sit with her and comfort her fears, pointing her always to her faith in Christ. On many occasions my wife would be up repeatedly through the night as her mom’s discomfort would not allow her to get long or restful sleep.

Some days are better than other days in situations like this. Dying seems to come on in waves. Some days those waves are an ebb tide, and the ‘old mom’ emerges. But, alas, her strength is diminished and those episodes shorten as time goes on.

Caring for the dying exacts a toll on any family. It is the bone-weariness produced by the needs of an increasingly helpless loved one. It is the wearing emotional distress of loss as one sees the life ebbing away. It is the inevitable tension between self and one’s own needs (needs?) and the needs of another, one who cannot any longer fully function as they once did.

For now, others in the family are shouldering the responsibility of care. The bone-weariness rests now almost completely on them. Our hearts and minds are still occupied with mom, preoccupied with concern for her comfort and care, but we are many miles away and must commit her to the Lord and the rest of the family for now.

We are not the only ones who have ever experienced this, of course. The loss of one much loved is the normal course of life. It befalls us all. I hope that our experience makes us more like Christ, who is all compassion. I hope that these days increase the ‘pure religion quotient’ in our lives. May God grant grace to our mom, and may God make us more like His Son.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3