no elbows in the afterlife?
I had heard the idea that there were no belly buttons in the Garden of Eden. (Think about it!) But in the most recent issue of the Christian Research Journal, Wayne Mayhall repeats an illustration he had heard previously...
In the Great Dining Hall of Hell (assuming people are willing to get together to eat; see: C.S. Lewis' awesome book, The Great Divorce), there will be plenty of food but staving people since they will have no elbows. They can grab the food but will not be able to feed themselves.
In the Great Dining Hall of Heaven, people will not have elbows either. The difference is that people will be feeding each other. As Mayhall concludes, "The next tasty morsel is only the arm's length of a friend away."
Of course, any such illustration is (highly) speculative-- and this one has a huge distraction (the brutally incorrect idea that one gets to heaven because you're a nice person who likes to be with friends). But it correctly picks up one sure aspect of Heaven and Hell-- of those who have (or have not) accepted the grace of God to take care of their sins: selfishness and ego vs. selfless love that manifests itself in gracious service to others.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 10:02 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Eric,
I don't think the illustration necessarily implies being a good friend gets you to heaven. You super-impose that upon it! Just because it doesn't specifically offer the true Gospel doesn't mean it doesn't assume it. It is merely an illustration to highlight the evil of self-absorbtion.
Thank you for your interaction!
C. Wayne mayhall, Associate Editor
Christian Research Journal
Wayne, thanks for your response. I'm a big fan of CRI and CRJ!
I understand the illustration and agree it does not necessarily imply that. But it is the picture painted by the illustration. As with a parable, the reader should be careful how far he pushes the "lessons" of an illustration. But we must also be careful how (some) others are likely to interpret our illustrations-- especially when it reinforces such a prevalent and damning misperception of Salvation.
Grace and peace to you and yours!
Yes, Eric, I agree with you completely! The illustration falls short of proclaiming the kergyma! I attempted to make up for its lack by following with the anectdotal material of Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Hopefully, the reader will follow the links I offer to read this powerful sermon.
I appreciate SCHANSBLOG!
C. Wayne Mayhall, Associate Editor
Christian Research Journal
Dear Mr. Mayhall:
This is the only route I could find to get the following email to you.
If you read Lovelle Svart's complete story and followed all of her online interviews you may have noticed that this intelligent, articulate and loving woman chose the option of legally and humanly ending her suffering before she reached the point she was unable to communicate her wishes or carry out her intentions. This was a gift she gave to those she loved and a present to a world that sorely needs to discuss end-of-life issues.
Physicians who assist their patients in using Oregon's aid-in-dying law no longer adhere to the anti-Christian/Judeo Hippocratic Oath. As you are aware, the Hippocratic Oath to which most of those who oppose Oregon's aid-in-dying law refer to as proof that a physician most "do no harm," is an oath that requires one to swear to the Greek mythological gods of Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia and, Panacea. This oath is considered not only anti-Christian but no longer applicable to modern medical practice. The "oath" taken today, by the overwhelming number of physicians, is one that no longer requires doctors to swear to mythological gods. The following is a modern version of that "oath."
Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust you must show respect for human life (emphasis added) and you must: Make the care of your patient your first concern, Protect and promote the health of patients and the public, Provide a good standard of practice and care, keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date, Recognize and work within the limits of your competence, Work with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients' interests, Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity, Treat patients politely and considerately, Respect patients' right to confidentiality, Work in partnership with patients, Listen to patients and respond to their concerns and preferences, Give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand, Respect patients' right to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care, Support patients in caring for themselves to improve and maintain their health, Be honest and open and act with integrity, Act without delay if you have good reason to believe that you or a colleague may be putting patients at risk, Never discriminate unfairly against patients or colleagues, Never abuse your patients' trust in you or the public's trust in the profession. You are personally accountable for your professional practice and must always be prepared to justify your decisions and actions.
It is our sincere hope you will leave open the possibility that God has given people free will to decide that in ending their life, in accordance with the procedures required in Oregon's law, is within God's great plan. Also, physicians who carry out their patients' wishes are showing "respect for human life," not disrespect. It is a selfless act, a loving act, and a justified act by all involved. Please be kinder in the future to those who are facing death and struggling with their end-of-life options.
Sincerely,
George Eighmey
Executive Director
Compassion & Choices of Oregon
PO Box 6404
Portland, OR 97228
503.525.1956
Fax: 503.228.9160
email: or@compassionandchoices.org
web: www.compassionoforegon.org
George, I'm sure you could get something to Wayne at CRI through equip.org. I doubt that he'll see it here.
To your point, there are various types of euthanasia. Focusing on the purely voluntary examples, there is an important difference to be made between the righteousness of the act (or not) and whether Christians should work in political terms to prevent people from engaging in that act.
The first question is a challenging one-- at least if one is trying to carefully delineate what constitutes euthanasia-- withholding feeding, modest medical treatment, etc.
The second question is even tougher within a coherent Christian political worldview. Too often, Christians assume that because something is wrong, it follows that they should seek legislation. This turns out to be a popular but incoherent view.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home