In the last letter we had seen a condition described in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis which portrays two different aspects of man’s relationship to the world.

We had looked at several options of reacting to conditions that are now espoused within our society and which are so antagonistic to belief and faith. We should not simply withdraw from this discussion because we will thereby open the door for further exploitation by those opposed to faith. What should we do?

Our first step is to listen to what is being put forward as a program in politics and ethics by those opposed to the Church and to faith. One of the problems is that the consequences of this opposition to people of faith are being hidden and not revealed for rational consideration by our governments and media.

Let me just raise a few points that throw some light on this whole matter.

Abortion was deemed a crime at two Nuremberg trials – the Goering and Greifelt cases. Allied prosecutors made the case that abortion was a crime against humanity. Moreover, the prosecution argued that abortion was a crime against the unborn child. A ruling of guilty was brought in against two defendants of those charged with the crime of abortion.

Euthanasia was another crime for which Nazis were prosecuted and found guilty. And yet, today, euthanasia is being pushed forward as a solution to medical problems centering around pain and suffering. The unspoken player in this drama is the savings in costs for governments serving euthanasia to the sick as opposed to improving palliative care and trying to comfort patients. Governments are not objective participants in this matter but have a vested interest reflected in economic savings that would accrue as patients are killed.

Let’s move forward sixty years and we find that abortion is now a human right and euthanasia is deemed an act of kindness and dignity. Within a matter of a period of roughly 50 years, what was once seen as an act against humanity, is now deemed as an act affirming humanity. The turn-around is astounding and yet it is little commented on because the ground has been prepared for the acceptance of this change as a normal evolution of human behavior and morality. Where previously, the unborn child was seen as deserving of certain human rights such as protection against murder, unborn children are now seen as having no rights and can be disposed of with the assistance of the state.

One of the underlying basic tenets of a civilization is a moral code and whenever this code is shaken, then this civilization is heading to its demise. There are many signs that Western Civilization is coming to an end and what will replace it is still unknown. And here we come to the crux of the matter. What is the basis for a moral code – who is its originator?

A claim has been made, and is widely supported that a moral code is changeable since it is invented by societies and we can see this in that there are various behaviors permitted and disallowed in various civilizations. And here we are really treading on slippery ground since any moral tenet can now be overturned. When there is no transcendental basis for a moral code, then anything can become acceptable – the moral code is now dictated by the whims of the majority, and in some cases, even by the whims of a minority. This is done through the assistance of the media but also through a manipulation of language and terms used to support certain moral changes. After all, freedom of choice sounds much more humane than to starkly state that this option supports murder of unborn children. It is less offensive to talk about a fetus as opposed to an unborn child. It will be claimed that this claim for murder is misplaced because unborn children are not really persons, and therefore do not deserve a defence of their rights since they are not ‘human beings’ because human beings are defined as having certain properties which the unborn child lacks. I think that you can already sense where this is leading us. If unborn children cannot be considered full persons with all of the rights that this brings, then what can we say about those who are ‘mentally challenged’? (Ironically again, one of the crimes with which the Nazis were charged and found guilty was in killing people with mental illnesses.) Can we also claim that those who have deficient mental capacities are not fully human and therefore can be ‘disposed’ of with the blessings of society? You can see that we have opened Pandora’s box with many unforeseen repercussions for all of us and we see no way that society can suggest how to get us out of this mess and so society’s answer is to ignore it.

When we talk about the moral code, we are really referring to something deeper and more profound than following a certain set of rules. We are talking about values and meaning and worth – we are talking about an ethos. We do not want to be moralistic and judgmental but at the same time we want to challenge the prevailing mores of the times. To be heard we have to offer something positive that we all can strive for.

Here, we come to a problem that is of our own making. If we took a look at the common view of our faith within wide circles of society we would realize that this caricature has had a lasting and deep impact on the thinking of people. Allow me just to give a quick overview of this popular conception as to what Christianity teaches. It all begins with Adam and the Fall. We are told that the most serious consequences of the Fall are that death now entered into the world as a punishment for Adam’s transgression. But this view raises a whole plethora of questions. It almost paints a picture of a bunbling god who is forced to introduce death into creation for the misstep of one person. Before this, there was a paradise and no death.

In light of what we now know about the natural history of the world, this seems like something very difficult to reconcile with the fact that we have evidence that biological death is part and parcel of this world of ours and has always been so as far as we can ascertain from history and archeology. To claim otherwise is to lose all credibility in the eyes of today’s spciety. In the past, the Church failed to respond to the Darwinian challenge constructively in seeing something here that expands our knowledge of the world and how it is organized. Instead, what arose was an acrimonious debate in an attempt to disprove the claims of Darwinism. Some in the secular world, almost gleefully, trumpeted that man is just one lowly cog in the biological world no different from apes and other animals. This attitude is now anchored in the charges of ‘speciesm’ against anyone who claims that humans are above animals. We should not deny that Darwinism has negative aspects to it – it does – but at the same time, we can glean some useful information from the claims made by Darwin.

Moreover, the unjustness of the picture that claims that one man’s error has now condemned so many to suffering and death, is totally incomprehensible to many today, as in fact, it should be. And yet, today one can find many within the Church who claim that a literal reading of Genesis and a literal understanding of poetry and imagery is the only way to interpret the early chapters of the Bible. When we read about paradise, what does it mean? When it is said that death entered, what does that mean? We need to dig deeper here and try to see an enriched picture of what we are being taught.

What we need to do is to return to a more accurate and representative model of what it is that our faith is teaching us and through this, show that it is relevant to the world and can address some of the major concerns that are out there.

What has come to the fore recently is the worry about the fate of the world in light of the ecological damage that has been done to the earth. This, coupled with the observation that climatic changes are occurring at an alarming rate and may have dire effects on the whole of humanity and on the planet as a whole. And when our faith is seen as being so anthropomorphic that the rest of creation is a mere backdrop to the drama being played out in humans, it is not surprising that for many, Christianity has come to be seen not as a solution to a problem but as its cause. What are we to make of this and how are we to answer some of these charges that have been raised? This is something that we will look at in the next letter.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas