View
all articles
Applying Worldviews to Bioethics, Part 4: Suffering or Death?
David Hill finishes his series on euthanasia by discussing the Christian response to suffering.
Should We Accept Suffering?
In this series of articles, I have introduced a worldview grid that serves as a guide in understanding the dichotomous nature of the biblical worldview. This dichotomy arises because the biblical worldview demands a balanced perspective on the nature of humans between the spiritual and the natural as well as the rational and the aesthetic.
In part three of this series, I examined the mind/body problem and concluded that being "created in the image of God" means we must accept both our physical and spiritual natures. In this final article of this series, I will address the issue of suffering as it pertains to euthanasia and propose a balance between rationality and aesthetics.
Correcting Imbalance in the Horizontal Axis
As in previous articles, I present the worldview grid here for you to reference throughout the discussion. In the case of euthanasia, specifically, the vertical axis reflects the mind/body problem (that we are both created beings and given souls), while the horizontal axis deals with attitudes about suffering — our focus herein.
Reasoning About Suffering
The Bible presents story after story of people who experience suffering, sometimes as a consequence of their sin, and sometimes completely undeserved. One of the most extensive of these stories is that of Job.
Recall that God said that Job was "a blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8 NIV). God allowed Satan to make Job suffer first by destroying his livelihood and his children, then by plaguing Job with infected sores, the pain from which was relieved only by scratching himself with a piece of broken pottery. Chapter after chapter, Job's friends struggled with him to resolve the cause of his suffering. Many times, Job longs for his suffering to end. Even his wife advises him to "Curse God and die" (Job 2:9).
Other biblical stories recount undeserved suffering. For example:
- Joseph was persecuted by his jealous brothers.
- The Israelites were enslaved for hundreds of years in Egypt.
- David was pursued by Saul.
- Jeremiah was persecuted for prophesizing the destruction of Jerusalem.
- Hosea was married to an unfaithful woman.
- John the Baptist was imprisoned for criticizing Herod's marriage to his sister.
- Paul was incarcerated for preaching the Gospel.
The ultimate example of undeserved suffering is the events that surrounded Christ's arrest and crucifixion.
Clearly, the Bible presents suffering as an inescapable reality of walking with God. Yet, it shows that suffering, one way or the other, serves a purpose — the transformation of souls.
The Callousness of Reasoning Alone
On the left side of the grid, that is, the "Reason" side, we might find ourselves agreeing with the positions of platonism and rationalism, which view euthanasia as a viable means to alleviate severe human suffering. From these points of view, all we would need to determine is which causes greater pain — the suffering in life or the ceasing of life. We can agree that yes, suffering is unjust, but because it is inevitable, we just need to gauge how bad it is and then "put someone out of their misery." Moral justification of euthanasia, then, turns into drawing a line between moderate and excessive suffering. Logically, if your suffering is over the line, then it would be morally justifiable to euthanize you.
Unfortunately, attempting to gauge the degree of one's suffering is a fruitless endeavor because it is not measurable by any quantitative standard. It becomes a judgment call not based on logical, proven arguments — the very basis of reason. When a supposedly rational worldview defies logic by relying on complete relativism, we have good grounds to be suspicious of it, if not reject it altogether.
There is, however, another issue at stake. Regardless of the inevitability of suffering, it is still something that we all will experience. And it will be painful. The comfort that Christians can find in God is knowing that we never have to suffer alone because we have a loving God who suffers with us. Like God, we must be willing to embrace the pain of loved ones as God embraces our pain.
Finally, with regard to the left side of the worldview grid, we face an issue similar to the mind/body problem addressed in part three of this series: suffering transforms the soul. In each of the stories of the Bible, when God allows suffering in an individual's life, good inevitably comes out of it.1
Imagine if Job's friends had decided to euthanize him? He would have missed out on God showing him the errors in his perspective (that God's ways are not man's ways) and restoring all that he had lost. So, if we are suffering as a result of God's will, we can have hope in the good that will come, either to us, to others or both.
In summary, we can never judge whether someone is suffering enough to be euthanized without employing relativistic standards. Second, euthanasia eradicates the opportunity on Earth to grow closer to God and to others. Third, euthanasia jeopardizes the potential good that God can bring forth from someone's suffering.
Bringing the Truth to the Aesthetic
On the right side of the grid, mystical and pantheistic worldviews attempt to apply aesthetics to the issue of euthanasia by arguing that suffering dehumanizes the sufferer. This is a tempting view for Christians to fall prey to; because we are created in the image of God, we ascribe a high degree of dignity to humans. Additionally, aesthetics such as beauty, love, hope and happiness are paramount within Christianity because they flow from God.
So, what's wrong with Christians viewing euthanasia as a way for dehumanized individuals to regain their dignity?
Although these arguments sound reasonable, they overlook an important fact: Suffering is an inevitable component of life, and even more so for the Christian. It is hard to argue otherwise, though many Christians may believe that the Christian life is supposed to be a "suffering-free zone." Unfortunately for all of us, the Bible just doesn't support such a belief. Instead, we are faced with the reality that we will all desire things we cannot have, including being free of physical pain. Add to that the fact that the Bible demonstrates how suffering is used to transform us into the image of Christ and we are left with a hard truth: Christians must endure suffering.
So, is there any dignity in suffering? Is it more human to suffer or be free of it? Again, the model for suffering that we have in the Bible is Christ. It was clear that Jesus didn't want to suffer based on His prayers that God spare Him the path to the cross. But in the end, Christ prayed that God's will be done.
Other stories of suffering throughout the Bible also show that human dignity comes through serving God, even unto death. If anything is dehumanizing, it is sin — not suffering in itself. We only have to look at Adam and Eve before and after the Fall to see what dehumanization looks like. Christ, by suffering with dignity while serving God, demonstrates the fullness of humanity. He shows us in His suffering what beauty, hope, love and happiness truly look like in a life submitted to God's will.
So, suffering is tragic but necessary in the transformation of our souls. And there is dignity in obeying God's will, even when we do suffer.
Rethinking Euthanasia
A balanced biblical worldview handles the mind/body problem and the problem of suffering by giving the proper perspective about the transformation of our souls and obeying God's will. When applied to the issue of euthanasia, we can see that termination of life earlier than God intends potentially robs the sufferer and those who might be impacted by the life of the sufferer. In the end, this is too great of a risk to take.
We should look to Christ as a model for suffering and for correctly understanding the nature of man. If we accept the seemingly dichotomous nature of being human, we can discover a fully integrated truth, at the middle of our grid — the biblical worldview.
Epilogue: Applying Worldviews to Life
In this series, I've shown how the worldview grid can guide us to abide in the dichotomies present in the biblical worldview. I discussed the bioethical issue of euthanasia to demonstrate the effectiveness of the grid in helping to identify areas of imbalance in our thinking.
C O F F E E S H O PWe have a responsibility to check our own thinking as well as the thinking of others on issues related to the nature of human beings. These types of issues are clearly important in bioethics but, in fact, all aspects of life are affected by our worldview. By continually checking our thinking, we can ensure that we are not being led astray from the truth.
- See Romans 8:28. Back^
David J. Hill is a freelance writer in science education and a copyeditor in medical education. His interests include cultural and Christian perspectives on science and technology. In his spare time, he can be found obsessing about why the Book of Job is not talked about more on Sunday mornings and whether or not he should start a book on the lives of 18th-century scientists entitled, Alchemy Rules!: When Turning Stuff into Gold Was the Topic at the Water Cooler. He attended graduate school in chemistry at the University of Illinois and did his undergraduate work at Point Loma Nazarene University. He and his wife, Angel, have three children.
Back to top
