Paul Lamb’s tragic personal circumstances must not blind us to the deadly consequences of his attempt to undermine the murder law

A 57 year-old man, who was almost entirely paralysed in a road accident 23 years ago, is now seeking permission for a doctor to give him a lethal injection to end his life.

Paul Lamb (pictured), who up until the lifting on an anonymity order this week has been known only as ‘L’ (see previous reports here, here and here), has won the right to join the right-to-die campaign started by Tony Nicklinson, a locked-in syndrome sufferer who died last year after an unsuccessful court challenge.  

As a result of his accident Lamb, a divorced father-of-two, has been left with quadriplegia and has no function in any of his limbs apart from a little movement in his right hand.

He requires 24 hour care but can speak and is able to eat, to operate a computer and telephone using an electronic device and to control, with assistance, an electric wheelchair.

Lamb requires a permanent urinary catheter and has pain which is difficult to control. He now feels there are ‘too many negatives’ and claims to be ‘worn out’ and ‘genuinely fed up’ with his life.

His case will be joined to that of Jane Nicklinson, Tony Nicklinson’s widow, and will be heard in the Court of Appeal in the week of 13 May.

Tony Nicklinson’s case was originally rejected by the Divisional Court in August last year and he died less than a week later, on 22 August 2012.

Nicklinson had argued for his GP, or another doctor, to be able to end his life on the basis that the common law defence of ‘necessity’ was available to a charge of murder in a case of voluntary active euthanasia provided that the Court had sanctioned the act in advance (see more on this here). He had also appealed to Article 8 of the European Convention (right to private and family life).

The three judges in the case admitted that Nicklinson was in a ‘terrible predicament’ and described his plight as ‘deeply moving and tragic’ but unanimously agreed that the current law did not breach his human rights and that it was for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.`

But Paul Bowen QC, counsel for Lamb, has said that he will be asking for this high court decision to be set aside and for the case to be sent back to a different panel of judges to be reconsidered.

Both Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb intend to advance arguments under Article 8 and Lamb will also argue for the right to have a lethal injection on grounds of ‘necessity’.

The key point to grasp about this case is that Lamb is arguing not for assisted suicide (help to kill himself) but for euthanasia (giving a doctor the power and authority actively to end his life). He claims that he would be incapable of killing himself even with assistance (although this is in itself questionable given that he appears to be capable of sucking with a straw).

The case therefore threatens to drive a coach and horses through the murder law (rather that the Suicide Act).

It could effectively create a legal precedent for anyone who, according to Tony Nicklinson's words, is suffering from 'a medical condition that causes unbearable suffering', when there are 'no alternative means available by which his suffering may be relieved', who has made a 'voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision' to end his life to be given a lethal injection by a medical doctor 'who is satisfied that his or her duty to respect autonomy and to ease the patient's suffering outweighs his or her duty to preserve life'. 

That is actually a very wide category of people indeed, far wider than any category yet suggested by anyone bringing a bill before any British parliament.

It would also be easily amenable to further incremental extension through the courts. What if a person fulfils all these conditions but is not mentally competent? Or chooses not to try 'alternative means' like palliative care? Or is a minor? Or suffers from a mental illness? Or has dementia? Or could a non-doctor do it? Or might someone claim after death that the conditions applied (when the patient and key witness is already dead)? These are the sort of extensions that we are already seeing in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands which have adopted laws far less radical than this.

Is it any wonder that the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions are all opposing him?

Paul Lamb is proposing a far-reaching legal change that would remove legal protection from a large number of vulnerable elderly, disabled and sick people. How many of these could then feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a financial or emotional burden on others? The so called right to die can so easily become the duty to die.

There are also many people who already stand to gain financially or emotionally from the death of particular elderly or disabled family members and they do not need encouragement. This is why the present law is necessary. Through the penalties it holds in reserve it acts as a powerful disincentive to exploitation and abuse whilst giving some prosecutorial and judicial discretion in hard cases. It provides the best balance and does not need changing.

Furthermore, a time of economic recession, when many families are already under pressure from rising costs, unemployment and benefit cuts and health budgets are being squeezed, is the very worst time to be considering such a change in the UK.

We need also to take warning from the rapid incremental extension of euthanasia observed in both Belgium and the Netherlands, two European jurisdictions which have legalised it since 2000.

In the Netherlands cases of euthanasia have increased 15-20% every year since 2006 and in Belgium there was an increase of over 4,600% between 2002 and 2011. And there is now pressure to liberalise the law even further.

More than that, as the Ministry of Justice has already argued, Parliament and not the courts is the proper place to be making such serious decisions. But parliamentary measures attempting to legalise assisted suicide have already been rejected three times by British Parliaments since 2006 over concerns about public safety.

They have also been strongly opposed by medical bodies including the BMA and Royal Colleges along with every major disability rights organisation in the UK.

That is precisely why this current campaign is being waged via the courts. Lamb’s legal team would like the courts to examine ‘the substantive evidence’ and make a decision that is actually the proper province of parliament. This is because they believe that the courts provide an easier path to fulfilling their agenda.

It is noteworthy that Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is not backing this case because Lamb is not terminally ill and is seeking euthanasia rather than assisted suicide. Even they see as far too big a step.

Instead Lamb is being supported by the British Humanist Association, which has a far more radical agenda and is intervening on his behalf.

The lifting of Lamb’s anonymity order has effectively passed him the campaigning baton previously held by Nicklinson and the launch of the campaign has been timed to have maximal impact leading up to the Court case in May and the launch of Lord Falconer’s new assisted dying bill in the same month.

Campaigners also know that giving the campaign as human face will help to gain public support for a change that would otherwise be unthinkable.

There will be very few people who will not feel sympathy for Paul Lamb, but we must not allow ourselves to be swayed by his tragic personal circumstances into welcoming a legal change that would have such dangerous repercussions for so many vulnerable elderly and disabled people.

Despite the media hype, the Court of Appeal should give Lamb’s high profile campaign the same short shrift that the Divisional Court gave Tony Nicklinson.

Doctor who killed seven new-born babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors may face death penalty

The Daily Telegraph (see here and here) has this week run the story of a US abortionist who is facing a potential death sentence after being charged with the gruesome murders of seven babies and a mother.

Dr Kermit Gosnell (pictured), who is on trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, allegedly ran a filthy and dangerous ‘abortion mill’ from his clinic, where he terminated pregnancies after the state's 24-week legal limit.

24 weeks is the age beyond which babies will generally survive in a neonatal unit although babies born as young as 22 weeks have been known to survive in exceptional circumstances.

The Telegraph reports it as follows:

The 72-year-old doctor is accused in a graphic 281-page grand jury report of forcing vulnerable women to give birth to live foetuses, which he and his colleagues killed using a method they called ‘snipping’.

‘He regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors,’ the grand jury states.

Dr Gosnell is charged with eight counts of murder. His case has generated widespread revulsion and rekindled the emotive and politically-charged debate over access to abortion across America.

Prosecutors allege that Dr Gosnell's legitimate-sounding Women's Medical Society was in fact a ‘baby charnel house’ in which foetal remains were left scattered around in freezers, bags and jars.

Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Dr Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. 

An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at the clinic where he helped perform the late-term abortions.

Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body’.

He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, ‘it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.’

According to the Atlantic, the story has been played down in the American media – possibly because the allegations of a homicidal abortion doctor don't fit into their pro-choice narrative (more on this here, here,  here, here and here)

There was also evidence of a cover up suggesting that there may have been many other cases – from the Telegraph:

While records for most of these are said to have been destroyed, Dr Gosnell has been charged with seven counts of first-degree murder in cases where investigators discovered documentary evidence.

One, ‘Baby A’, weighed about six pounds and was breathing and moving after his 17-year-old mother gave birth, prosecutors say. Joking that the baby was big enough to ‘walk me to the bus stop,’ Dr Gosnell allegedly disposed of his body in a shoebox.

Dr Gosnell is also charged with the third-degree murder of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old refugee from Nepal, who died after being sedated.

Prosecutors claim that before paramedics arrived, her body was rearranged to appear as though she had been undergoing a ‘routine, safe abortion procedure’.

The clinic was raided by the FBI in February 2010 and Dr Gosnell's medical licence was suspended.

Two academic bioethicists stirred up huge controversy a year ago by saying that infanticide was ethically equivalent to abortion.

Their point was that if we can justifiably abort babies beyond 24 weeks, then it must be equally justifiable to kill them after birth at the same (or possibly even younger) age.

Their logic is difficult to fault.

But if people are shocked by infanticide– and I hope that most are especially after reading a story like this – then they should surely be equally questioning late abortion.

There were 2,729 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2011 on babies at 20 weeks gestation or beyond, of which 146 were beyond 24 weeks.

No wonder that sections of the American media were reluctant to run the story.

I wonder how much of the British media will touch it. 

PS. Finally, on 16 April there is massive media coverage on both sides of the Atlantic after the BBC covered it on 15 April..

Margaret Thatcher recognises the wisdom and goodness of Jesus Christ

Whatever one’s final verdict on Margaret Thatcher, even her harshest critics have conceded that she was at heart a ‘conviction politician’ who was driven by ideology and not swayed by public opinion.

One of her most famous quotes was that given to Conservatives at the party conference in Brighton in 1980 and underlining her determination to stick to tough economic policies:

‘To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!’

In like manner Sir Malcolm Rifkind recalled this week a time when she was asked ‘Do you believe in consensus?’ and replied:

‘Yes, I do believe in consensus: There should be a consensus behind my convictions.’

However a touching letter she wrote to a schoolboy published this week in the Express and Daily Mail reveals that she felt she lived in the shadow of at least one person.

On 15 March, 1980, in the same year as Thatcher’s Brighton speech above, David Liddelow, the young son of a vicar, wrote to her, posing her a challenging question. The youngster, from Borehamwood, Herts, asked:

‘Last night when we were saying prayers my Daddy said everyone has done wrong things except Jesus. I said I don’t think you have done bad things because you are the Prime Minister. Am I right or is my Daddy?’

A few weeks later, David and his father, received a handwritten reply in fountain pen:

‘However good we try to be, we can never be as kind, gentle and wise as Jesus… There will be times when we say or do something we wish we hadn’t done and we shall be sorry and try not to do it again! We do our best, but our best is not as good as his daily life. If you and I were to paint a picture it wouldn’t be as good as the picture of great artists. No our lives can’t be as good as the life of Jesus.’

In a touching and candid final paragraph, Mrs Thatcher added:

‘As Prime Minister, I try very hard to do things right and because Jesus gave us a perfect example I try even harder. But your father is right in saying that we can never be as perfect as He was.’

Jesus himself was once called good by someone asking him a similarly tricky question and gave a surprising reply:

‘ As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.’ (Mark 10:17,18)

The text is often misunderstood as implying that Jesus was denying his divinity, but as described in more detail here, he was actually doing the very opposite.

Jesus’ question to the man was designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity.

Such an interpretation is substantiated by passages such as John 10:11 wherein Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the good shepherd’. Similarly in John 8:46, Jesus asks, ‘Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?’

Of course the answer is ‘no’. Jesus was ‘without sin’ (Hebrews 4:15), holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who ‘knew no sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The logic can thus be summarised as follows:

1: Jesus claims only God is good
2: Jesus claims to be good
3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God

Such a claim makes perfect sense in light of the flow of Mark’s narrative with regards to the unfolding revelation of Jesus’ real identity. It is only before the high priest in Mark 14:62 when the question of Jesus’ identity is explicitly clarified.

I am not sure whether Margaret Thatcher followed the logic through to this conclusion, but she had certainly taken a step onto the first rung by recognising the goodness of Jesus.

See also:

Is Jesus the only way to God?

Why did Jesus have to die?

The queen once again points her subjects to Jesus Christ

Why Christians may eat shellfish but may not have sex outside marriage

An argument frequently advanced by those attempting to defend homosexual practice is that Christians ‘cherry pick’ the commands in the Bible – that is, they chose to emphasise some commands while ignoring others.

The Old Testament may forbid homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:2; 20:13) but it also forbids eating seafood without fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9, 10).

So how can Christians then justify upholding laws on sexual morality whilst at the same time ignoring the food laws from the very same books of the Bible? Why may they eat shellfish but not be allowed to have sex outside marriage? Isn’t this inconsistent and hypocritical?

Didn’t Jesus himself say that ‘anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven’? (Matthew 5:19)

The answer to this question lies in an understanding of biblical covenants.

A covenant is a binding solemn agreement made between two parties. It generally leaves each with obligations. But it holds only between the parties involved.

There are a number of biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic (Old), Davidic and New.

Under the Noahic covenant, which God made with all living human beings (Genesis 9:8-17), people were able to eat anything:

‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’ (Genesis 9:3).

But under the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel, people were able to eat certain foods, but not others. These are listed in detail in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-21).

However these laws were applicable only to the nation of Israel and were intended to set them apart from other races.

The Old (Sinaitic) Covenant was made after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and involved laws, priests (all of whom were members of the tribe of Levi) and a sacrificial system based on animal sacrifice. It was aimed at protecting Israel from God’s wrath and judgement.

The nation of Israel, however, was unable to keep the requirements of the Old Covenant, meaning that a New Covenant was necessary, as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah:

‘“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”’ (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44). He would establish this new covenant with new laws, with himself as high priest based on his own sacrificial death on the cross. 

This new covenant would completely deal with sin (Hebrews 10:1-18) and protect all those who put their faith in him from God’s wrath and judgement (See more on this here).

‘In the same way, after the supper (Jesus) took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”’ (Luke 22:20). ‘…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10)

People would come under the protection of this new covenant, not by virtue of belonging to the nation of Israel, but through faith in Christ. In fact the function of the Old Testament Law (Sinaitic covenant) was to point to Christ as its fulfilment.

‘So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile…’ (Galatians 3:24-28)

The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in saying:

‘I myself am not under the law… though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law’ (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21)

So what then did Christ say about foods? He pronounced all foods clean for his followers to eat:

‘ “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,  adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18-23)

Jesus was making that point that under the new covenant God required purity of the heart. Internal thoughts and attitudes were as important as external actions.  Consistent with this God commanded the apostle Peter to eat food that was forbidden under the Old Covenant:

‘Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:13-15)

Similarly the apostle Paul taught that all foods were admissible under the New Covenant:

‘(hypocritical liars)… order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.  For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,  because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.’ (1 Timothy 4:2-5)

So Christians can eat anything, including shellfish.

But what about sex?

The Bible, consistently throughout, teaches that sex is only permissible within a marriage between a man and a woman. This principle is first laid down during the creation narrative:

‘a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24)

It is upheld in the Old Covenant and in great detail every sexual act outside this pattern is listed as off limits in Leviticus 18 and 20.

Jesus upholds the same principle in his teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12) and its importance is emphasised to Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19,20) and repeatedly emphasised in the teaching of the apostles.

‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable,  not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;  and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7)

In fact in the very last book of the Bible we are told that the unrepentant ‘sexually immoral’ will not enter heaven (Revelation 21:8, 22:15)

I have unpacked this teaching on sexual morality in much more detail here and here.

So Christians can eat shellfish, in fact they can eat all foods, but they cannot have sex outside marriage. And that includes homosexual sex.

Answering Christians who are unclear about biblical sexual ethics

Anyone who presents a biblical perspective on sexual ethics on the internet will come in for a lot of criticism and be called all manner of things, especially if writing about homosexuality.

This is entirely what we should expect. 

We live in a world that is hostile to Christian faith and values and to many people biblical sexual ethics are antiquated, bizarre, naïve, unrealistic or even unchristian.

But when that criticism comes from fellow Christians it is can be more challenging to handle.

The Evangelical Alliance’s recent survey on the views of evangelical Christians in Britain reveals that there is a wide range of views on sexual morality even amongst those who accept biblical authority.

Only 59% of 17,000 British evangelicals surveyed in 2010, for example, ‘agreed a lot’ that ‘homosexual actions are always wrong’. 14% ‘agreed a little’, 11% were unsure, 8% disagreed a little and 8% disagreed a lot.

And yet the Bible is very clear on this issue and the stance of the Evangelical Alliance has been very strong in recent statements. The Accepting Evangelicals group, who wish to bless gay partnerships, are a very small minority indeed.

So why are so many evangelicals so unclear? There are certainly strong pressures from the prevailing culture to adopt an unbiblical view, but I suspect it really boils down to what they are being taught (or not being taught!) in their churches.

Are evangelical pastors and teachers equally confused, or have they just been intimidated into silence by the fear of what reaction biblical teaching on this issue might generate?

I suspect it is largely the latter. So in this blog I have given some of the usual reactions Christians give when the issue of sexual morality is raised along with some suggested responses.

As always our best guide is the Bible itself, and so I have illustrated (and linked) each point with Scripture:

1.  It’s unloving

It’s increasingly common to be told by Christians that telling people they can’t be true to their feelings is ‘unloving’. Above all we should love one another and that means affirming and building up and not implying that other people’s behaviour is unacceptable.

But Jesus himself said that the commands to love God and love one another are summed up the Old Testament Law (Matthew 22:37-40). The command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ comes from Leviticus 19:18.

But Leviticus 19 is sandwiched immediately between Leviticus 18 & 20 where most of the explicit OT teaching on sexual morality is found. And these verses are very clear that the only context for sex is within a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman (marriage).

Furthermore all this teaching is upheld in the New Testament.

Leviticus 19:18 is preceded by the command, ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (19:2) and its immediate context is 19:17: ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in their guilt’.

Loving God and our neighbour involves being holy, being sexually pure and being concerned enough about our fellow believers to challenge them over sin.  Real love is willing even to risk being rejected for challenging a brother or sister because you care more about their walk with God than you do about what they think of you.

2. We shouldn’t judge

Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you’ (Matthew 7:1,2).

But it is clear from the wider context of Matthew that this is challenging hypocritical and judgmental attitudes and does not excuse Christians from challenging one another about sin. In fact looking out for each other in this way is a Christian duty.

Jesus commands in Matthew 18:15-17:

‘If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.’

The Apostle Paul is even more explicit about the need for church discipline for sexual sin:

‘ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you”.’ (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

3. It is between them and God

The Bible is very clear that sin is not simply between us and God. Sin damages the Christian community because all of us are inseparably linked as members of the body of Christ. In the body of Christ we are responsible for each other and when one falls all suffer. What damages the body is the body’s business. Furthermore sexual sin damages the body of Christ in a way that other sin does not:

‘Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies.’ (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).

4. The Gospel is about grace not law

It is of course true that we are saved by grace through faith through Jesus’ death for our sins (Ephesians 2:8, 9). It is also true that we rely on his grace and power to live holy lives. But once saved we are to imitate Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), to walk in his footsteps (1 John 2:6), indeed to imitate God himself (Ephesians 5:1).

We are called to ‘the obedience that comes from faith’ (Romans 1:5) and to be sanctified: avoiding sexual immorality; and learning to control our bodies in a way that is holy and honourable (1 Thessalonians 4:3,4). Furthermore God’s grace and patience is intended to lead us to repentance, not to be used as an excuse for continuing in sin (Romans 2:4). Loving God and obeying him are inextricably linked:

‘If you love me, keep my commands… Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me… Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love… You are my friends if you do what I command. ‘ (John 14:15, 21; 15:9,10,14)

5. We shouldn’t be modern day Pharisees

Absolutely not. The Pharisees ignored God’s real commands and substituted their own human traditions and made up laws for them.  They were also obsessed with outward appearances rather than any change of heart . (Matthew 15:1-20) They were hypocrites.

We should certainly not be like them, but seeking outward and inward sexual purity so that our thoughts and actions are aligned with God’s will is not being pharisaical. It is rather taking holiness seriously.

6. None of us is pure

This is of course true. Each of us misses the mark and falls short and who can say they have never looked at a man or woman who is not their wife with lust, or had an impure sexual thought? (Matthew 5:27-28)

But nonetheless we are called to a life of holiness and warned about the very real dangers of deliberately keeping on sinning after coming to a knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26-31). We need to be very mindful of our own vulnerabilities but this does not absolve us of the responsibility to correct and restore one another. It is rather part of bearing one another’s burdens and fulfilling the ‘law of Christ’.

‘Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ.’ (Galatians 6:1,2)

7. Why don’t you preach about other sins?

Sexual immorality is of course only one sin, and we should remember that true discipleship involves teaching disciples ‘to obey everything I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:19-20). But as we can see from the above sexual purity is very important which is why so much of Scripture is devoted to it, not just in pure didactic teaching, but through the many narratives of sexual sin put there for our warning:

‘We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died...These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!’ (1 Corinthians 10:10-12) 

Pastors and teachers must teach the whole counsel of God, but neglecting areas where one is likely to encounter criticism – and this is a prime example – is not being a faithful teacher. And teachers will be judged, we are told, more strictly (James 3:1):

‘For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:18,19) 

‘A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed!’ (Jeremiah 48:10)

It is essential that the sword of the Spirit, God’s word, is enabled to do its work (Hebrews 4:12).

There is of course more to holiness than sexual purity, but sexual purity is nonetheless an integral and essential part of the whole. 

Why doesn’t the British government help compensate this poor paralysed man in Saudi Arabia?

Western commentators have been quick to condemn a Saudi Arabian court this week for allegedly sentencing a man to be ‘paralysed’ for inflicting a similar injury on a friend.

According to the Daily Telegraph Ali al-Khawahir, 24, has been sentenced to ‘Qisas’, or retribution, for allegedly stabbing a childhood friend ten years ago. The attack, which is said to have happened during a dispute, left the victim paralysed from the waist down.

Saudi Arabia uses Islamic Sharia law, which involves ‘eye-for-an-eye’ punishment for crimes, but also allows victims to pardon offenders in exchange for compensation.

Al-Khawahir was sentenced to be surgically paralysed unless he can pay his victim one million riyals (£180,000) and has spent the last ten years in jail awaiting his punishment. His mother claims that the victim initially demanded two million riyals, but that although this has since reduced to one million riyals, the family ‘don’t have even a tenth of this sum’.

It is said that an unnamed philanthropist is trying to raise funds to pay the money, but it is unclear how much time remains before the punishment is inflicted.

Predictably the sentence has been called ‘grotesque’ by the British Foreign Office (FCO) and ‘akin to torture’ by Amnesty International.

But what is tellingly absent from all the media commentary is any expressed concern for the victim except, ironically, from the mother of the man convicted of the crime.

Al-Khawahir's mother says she feels sorry for the victim, and that he deserves ‘millions in compensation’. The problem is, she says, the Al-Khawahir family is poor and does not have the amount necessary to avoid the ‘eye for an eye’ ruling.

Under British law ‘common assault’ carries a custodial sentence of up to six months imprisonment under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 39) (or up to life imprisonment for grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861) but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 also grants payments to victims of violent crime of up to £500,000 per victim to cover injury,  loss of earnings,  special expenses,  bereavement, dependency and funerals.

Given that the average monthly salary in Saudi Arabia is 15,200 SAR (about £2,600) per month, £180,000 doesn’t seem to me to be unreasonable compensation for a serious spinal cord injury by our own British standards in order to cover a lifetime of lost earnings and healthcare costs.

Any just solution in this tragic case needs to include compensation for the victim – and if the perpetrator is unable to foot the bill, and the Saudi government is unwilling to, then why shouldn’t foreign governments and charities step in to help?

I for one would strongly support the British government spending some of its foreign aid money on cases like this. In fact I’d far rather see the Department for International Development (DfID) giving £180,000 to help support a paralysed man in Saudi Arabia than spending  £150 million supporting international abortion providers (!).

Wouldn’t it be amazing if, instead of condemning the Saudis, the British government forked out both to compensate the victim and to save the accused.

Personally I’d be quite content to see some of my tax money used in this way or to respond myself to an appeal to raise the funds if some individual – or some charity - would like to set one up.

An ‘eye for an eye’ (sometimes called the lex talionis) is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalised to a similar degree or, according to other interpretations, the victim receives the value of the injury in compensation.

It has a long history.  In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used and according to Jewish interpretations the victim in criminal law gets financial compensation based on the law of human equality.

The principle of an ‘eye for an eye’ has its origin in Old Testament Law (Exodus 21:23; Leviticus 24:19; Deuteronomy 24:7) and was aimed primarily at limiting retaliation for injuries (no more than the same injury could be inflicted). However it also established the principle that any punishment should fit the crime.

It was ‘humanised’ by the Rabbis who interpreted ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation but this very principle of financial recompense was itself explicit in the Old Testament.

A person guilty of assault was required to ‘pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed’ (Exodus 21:19). In other words he paid both for lost income and also healthcare.

For true justice to be done violent injuries should be compensated, and if it’s not possible for the perpetrator to do so, then it makes sense that others should help.

Jesus, of course went one step further in calling on Christians not to demand compensation but to forgive their violent attackers (Matthew 5:38-42). But in saying this he was not saying that wrongs should not be redressed.

Rather he was pointing to the way that God himself was to forgive our sins against himself through taking the punishment we deserved through his death on the cross. Jesus, in other words, stepped in to pay the compensation that we should have paid, but could not afford.  

Maybe instead of condemning the Saudis we should be following Jesus’ example. Wouldn’t that be a great post-Easter gesture?

Stunning 5,000% increase in Belgian euthanasia cases in eleven years since legalisation

I have previously highlighted the rapid escalation of euthanasia and assisted suicide cases in the Netherlands, Oregon and Switzerland in recent years but Belgium is eclipsing all of these countries in the race to become the ‘world leader’.

In 2012, the number of euthanasia cases in Belgium increased by 25%, from 2011 reaching a record level of 1,432 since the practice was legalized in the country in 2002 (original source here).

The Federal Control and Evaluation euthanasia (FCEE), in publishing the data, is now considering to extend the right to citizens who suffer from degenerative mental illnesses like Alzheimer’s and also children.

A recent FCEE report on euthanasia in Belgium on 2010 and 2011, unfortunately available only in French, details the longer term trends since legalisation.

The upper line in the graph above is the total of euthanasia cases reported to the commission and shows an increase from 24 cases in 2002 to 1,133 in 2011 – a stunning overall increase of 4,620% in just ten years! If we include the 1,432 figure for 2012 the increase is well over 5,000% in eleven years. Even if we count it from the first full year (2003), the increase is still over 500%.

The middle line in the graph above is the number of cases reported in Dutch (so by Dutch speaking medical doctors) and the bottom line is the number of cases reported in French (Walloon part and Brussels). So it seems that euthanasia is performed mostly in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium (Flanders).

It is important to note that only acts which intentionally end life using barbiturates (Article 2 of the law on euthanasia) meet the legal definition of legal euthanasia so these figures do not include people killed by deliberate overdosage with morphine, withdrawal of treatment with explicit aim of ending life or ‘terminal sedation’ with the aim of hastening death.

We know from the Netherlands that these other ways of ending life have also increased dramatically in recent years.

Over the last two years 75% of euthanasia cases in Belgium were for cancer (including all malignancies), 7% were for progressive neuromuscular disorders (multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, etc) and 18% were for ‘other conditions’.  

69% of euthanasia were performed in patients aged 40-79 years and 27% in patients older than 79 years.

194 cases over the two years (9%) involved patients whose deaths were ‘not foreseeable in the short term’ and 2% of cases involved unconscious patients who had earlier signed advance directives.

In the vast majority of cases (99%), death was produced by inducing deep unconsciousness first with barbiturates (usually thiopental ) followed by an IV injection of a paralyzing muscle relaxant (usually norcuron or tracium).

The Committee in its report emphasized the importance of ‘easy availability of products needed for euthanasia’ and considered that the medical school curriculum and postgraduate education sessions should include training on ‘the proper implementation of euthanasia’ .

It seems that euthanasia has now been accepted as part of normal medical care in Belgium.

The lessons are clear. Once euthanasia is legalised steady escalation follows along with a change in the social conscience so that it rapidly becomes accepted as normal.

With new bills about to be debated in the Westminster and Scottish parliaments Britain should take warning.