The alarmism of modern woke politics

...and does it matter? Part 1 of a new mini-series on Creationism.

Editorial introduction: We are delighted to publish the first in a three-part series on scientific evidence for a Creator, written by researcher, author and lecturer Paul Garner. The relationship between science and faith is an important spiritual battle-ground in the modern world, so it behoves us all to know what we believe about Genesis.

Whether you subscribe to a ‘young Earth’ or an ‘old Earth’, a seven-day Creation or a ‘millions of years’ evolutionary model, we hope that Paul’s in-depth research and writing will provoke you to think seriously about what you believe and why – for the sake of the Gospel.

In this first part of the series, Paul lays out different possible theories about the origins of human life and asks what kind of theology each requires.

 **********

The debate about origins – the origin of the universe, of life and of human beings – rages as fiercely today as it did at the time of Charles Darwin. A central question in the debate concerns common ancestry. Are all organisms related by descent from a single, common ancestor (as evolutionary theory proposes) or were many kinds separately created in the beginning (as creation theory proposes)?

Another question concerns the age of the Earth. Is the Earth 4.6 billion years old (as conventional science suggests) or is it about 6,000 years old (as a straightforward reading of the Bible suggests)? Although these two questions are rather different, they are connected. For example, if it could be shown that the world was young, common descent would in effect be disproved.

Christians today tend to fall into one of three ‘camps’. Theistic evolutionists (sometimes referred to as ‘evolutionary creationists’) embrace common descent and an old Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject common descent and an old Earth. Many Christians seek a middle way between these positions by rejecting common descent but embracing an old Earth.

It is often difficult for ordinary Christians to navigate their way through this maze of different opinions. The issues, both theological and scientific, can seem formidably complex and many believers feel ill-equipped to evaluate them.

The debate about the origin of the universe, of life and of human beings rages as fiercely today as it did at the time of Charles Darwin.

But I think there is a way to assess these ideas that most Christians can grasp, and that is to compare the relative sequence of events given in Genesis with the relative sequence of events according to the old-Earth, evolutionary model of origins. For contrary to common opinion, it is actually the age question that has the greater theological implications (rather than the ancestry question), and that is why I am making it the focus of this short series.

In this article, I begin with an overview of Earth’s history according to an ‘old Earth’ model, and then present three ways in which this conflicts with the sequence of events described in Genesis, with more to come next week.

History According to the Old-Earth Model

The conventional scientific view is that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old and that its geological development has been immensely long and gradual. The multi-million-year dates assigned to Earth history come from the application of radiometric dating, a set of methods that uses the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes as a kind of ‘clock’ to date the rocks and minerals of the Earth’s crust. The rock layers, with their enclosed fossils, are thus said to document the history of life over long eras of time.

Figure 1: The standard geological column representing the history of life on Earth according to the old-Earth model. Fossil organisms typical of each geological era are shown (‘my’ stands for ‘millions of years ago’). After Garner, P, 2009. The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation. Evangelical Press, Darlington, p195.

This understanding of Earth history can be summarised as follows (Figure 1).

• Precambrian rocks are considered to be the oldest rocks on Earth, deposited between 4,000 million and 541 million years ago. Most Precambrian fossils are micro-organisms resembling today’s bacteria and blue-green algae. Dome-shaped structures called stromatolites, thought to have formed when sediment became trapped by sticky algal mats, are abundant in Precambrian sediments. Towards the end of the Precambrian Eon, the first multi-celled organisms are thought to have appeared – represented by some strange segmented and frond-like creatures first discovered in the Ediacara Hills of South Australia.
  
• Palaeozoic (‘early life’) rocks follow the Precambrian and are said to have been deposited between 541 and 252 million years ago. The beginning of the Palaeozoic Era was marked by the sudden appearance of many hard-bodied animals including sponges, brachiopods (‘lamp shells’) and trilobites. By the middle of the Palaeozoic Era, fish had become numerous in the oceans, and plants and animals had begun to populate the land. By the end of the era, the first large reptiles and modern plants (conifers) had appeared.

Something we can all do is compare the relative sequence of events given in Genesis with the relative sequence of events according to the old-Earth, evolutionary model.

• Mesozoic (‘middle life’) rocks are thought to have been deposited between 252 and 66 million years ago. This was the ‘age of the reptiles’. Life on the land was dominated by the dinosaurs, in the skies by flying reptiles called pterosaurs, and in the oceans by aquatic reptiles such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs. Ammonites (squid-like creatures in coiled shells) were also common in the warm, shallow seas. The mammals, birds and flowering plants (angiosperms) also made their first appearance during this time.
  
• Cenozoic (‘recent life’) rocks are said to have been deposited between 66 million years ago and the present day. During the Cenozoic, the flowering plants are represented by a great array of trees, shrubs and vines. This was also the era in which most of the modern groups of birds and mammals appeared, as well as the first humans.

Many Christians suppose that there are few, if any, theological consequences of embracing this standard account of Earth history, with its time-scale of hundreds of millions of years.

But in fact there are massive theological difficulties, some of which I am going to highlight in what follows. I will do this by asking the question: what theology would we have to accept as true if we did embrace the old-Earth time-scale?

1. Agony, Death and Bloodshed Before Sin

First, we would have to accept that physical agony, death and bloodshed have been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans appeared or sin entered the world.

It hardly needs saying that fossils are the remains of dead things and therefore provide prima facie evidence of physical death. Conventional dating places the first appearance of animals in the fossil record at least as far back as 541 million years ago, probably earlier.¹ But even if we restrict our considerations to sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, evidence of agony and death goes back a long way.

Consider mosasaurs, a group of large marine reptiles, now extinct, preserved in the Upper Cretaceous deposits of North America and Europe. Conventionally, these fossils are 92-66 million years old and long pre-date the first appearance of modern humans (Homo sapiens) around 300,000-200,000 years ago. Many mosasaur skeletons show evidence of physical trauma, including bite wounds² and bone fractures.^3,4 These injuries would have been extremely painful when they were inflicted.

What theology would we have to accept as true if we did embrace the old-Earth time-scale?

Another dramatic example is the mass-death assemblage of horses, camels and rhinos at Ashfall Fossil Beds in Nebraska, USA, conventionally dated to about 12 million years ago. Bone lesions in these animals show that they died slow and agonizing deaths by asphyxiation as the result of inhaling volcanic dust in the aftermath of an eruption.⁵

Ashfall Fossil Beds: a Teleoceras female and her calf.But such evidence of agony and death long before there were humans runs counter to the biblical claim that death and bloodshed came into the world as a consequence of Adam’s sin (Gen 3:19; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22). When Adam fell, God told him he would return to the dust from which he had been taken (Gen 3:19), the ground was cursed (Gen 3:17) and Creation itself was subjected to corruption (Rom 8:20-22). And it is this causal connection between sin and physical death that explains why it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die physically to pay sin’s penalty (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 24:46).

As for the animals, they were caught up in the Fall because they were part of Adam’s dominion (Gen 1:28). When he fell, he dragged the rest of Creation down with him. The original diet of both humans and animals was vegetarian (Gen 1:29-30; cf. Isa 11:6-8, 65:25), and carnivory (meat-eating) is explicitly mentioned only after the Flood (Gen 9:3).

Indeed, the account of the Flood highlights the unnaturalness of animal violence, for we are told that the destruction of “all flesh” included the animals as well as the humans (Gen 7:15-16, 21), because both were corrupt and violent (Gen 6:11-13).

2. Disease and Sickness Before Sin

Second, we would have to accept that disease and sickness have been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans appeared or sin entered the world.

Clear evidence of pathology can be seen in the fossil record of many organisms, as we have already seen in the case of the animals that died of lung damage in Nebraska. In fact, the study of ancient disease is a discipline in its own right, known as palaeopathology.

Consider mosasaurs again. Many fossil specimens have pathological features of the skeleton, such as fused vertebrae,⁶ and some of these animals even show evidence of decompression sickness associated with diving.^7,8

An old-Earth model requires us to accept that pain, death, bloodshed and disease were around long before humans appeared or sin entered the world.

Bone abnormalities are common in certain types of dinosaurs, with one specimen displaying no fewer than eight maladies of its forelimb, including a permanently deformed third finger.⁹ Painful conditions such as malignant tumours, ripped tendons, broken teeth and arthritis are also known to have afflicted dinosaurs.^10,11,12 But such evidence of sickness and disease long before there were humans runs counter to the biblical claim that in the beginning God made a “very good” world that was later spoilt by Adam’s sin.

During Creation Week, God expressed his satisfaction with the things he had made by stating six times that they were “good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Upon completing his work, he crowned it all with a seventh, even stronger declaration – that the finished creation was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Sorrow, suffering and death were not part of this “very good” world but came about as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

It was Christ, the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), who came to undo what Adam did. Christ’s healing ministry (Matt 8:16-17; cf. Isa 53:5, Ps 103:2-3), culminating in his atoning death on the Cross, points forward to the day when God will wipe away every tear, and sorrow, pain and death will be no more (Rev 21:4, 22:2).

3. Natural Disasters Before Sin

Third, we would have to accept that natural disasters, such as famines, floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, have been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans appeared or sin entered the world.

Indeed, the fossil record is largely the product of such natural disasters, more being accomplished geologically during short-lived catastrophic events than in many years of quiescence.¹³ Some of these ancient natural disasters are known to have dwarfed any experienced in the present day.

The Chile earthquake of 1960 was the most powerful ever recorded on a seismograph.¹⁴ But much larger earthquakes would have accompanied the formation of large asteroid impact craters, such as the ones at Popigai in Siberia (conventionally formed 35 million years ago) or Sudbury in Ontario (conventionally formed 1.8 billion years ago).¹⁵

The most violent volcanic eruption in recent human history took place at Taupo, New Zealand, in about AD 186, and it left behind a pumice layer up to 1.8m thick with a volume of about 24 cubic kilometres.¹⁶ But much larger volcanic eruptions are known from the geological record, evidenced by deposits tens to hundreds of metres thick and with volumes exceeding 1,000 cubic kilometres.¹⁷

During Creation Week, God stated six times that what he had made was “good” and crowned it all with a seventh, even stronger declaration – that the finished creation was “very good”.

A popular Christian apologetic is to say that natural disasters such as these are a consequence of the Fall of man, and that they were not part of the world that God originally created. For example, here is what Tim Keller says in his book, The Reason for God:

Human beings are so integral to the fabric of things that when human beings turned from God the entire warp and woof of the world unravelled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, ageing and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime and violence.¹⁸ (my emphasis)

But this apologetic is baseless if such natural disasters were occurring long before the origin of humans or of human sin. In such a scenario, we could not say that natural disasters are consequences of living in a fallen world.¹⁹ Instead, we would have to acknowledge them as a normal part of how the world functions and that it had been this way from the beginning. This also seems to run counter to the biblical claim that the world as originally created was “very good” (Gen 1:31).

Next week: Three more theological problems presented by an ‘old-Earth’ model.

Author bio: Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for the Biblical Creation Trust (www.biblicalcreationtrust.org). He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology, and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London. He has taken part in research funded by the Institute for Creation Research and has written numerous papers, popular articles and a book.

References

1 dos Reis, M, Thawornwattana, Y, Angelis, K, Telford, MJ, Donoghue, PCJ and Yang, Z, 2015. Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Current Biology, 25:2939-2950.

2 Everhart, MJ, 2008. A bitten skull of Tylosaurus kansasensis (Squamata: Mosasauridae) and a review of mosasaur-on-mosasaur pathology in the fossil record. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 111:251-262.

3 Schulp, AS, Walenkamp, GHIM, Hofman, PAM, Rothschild, BM and JWM Jagt, 2004. Rib fracture in Prognathodon saturator (Mosasauridae, Late Cretaceous). Netherlands Journal of Geosciences / Geologie en Mijnbouw, 83:251-254.

4 Lingham-Soliar, T, 2004. Palaeopathology and injury in extinct mosasaurs (Lepidosauromorpha, Squamata) and implications for modern reptiles. Lethaia, 37:255-262.

5 Tucker, ST, Otto, RE, Joeckel, RM and Voorhies, MR, 2014. The geology and paleontology of Ashfall Fossil Beds, a late Miocene (Clarendonian) mass-death assemblage, Antelope County and adjacent Knox County, Nebraska, USA, pp1-22 in Korus, JT (ed), Geologic Field Trips along the Boundary between the Central Lowlands and Great Plains: 2014 Meeting of the GSA North-Central Section. Geological Society of America Field Guide 36.

6 Martin, JE and Bell, Jr, GL, 1995. Abnormal caudal vertebrae of Mosasauridae from Late Cretaceous marine deposits of South Dakota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, 74:23-27.

7 Rothschild, BM and Martin, L, 1987. Avascular necrosis: occurrence in diving Cretaceous mosasaurs. Science, 236:75-77.

8 Martin, LD and BM Rothschild, 1989. Paleopathology and diving mosasaurs. American Scientist, 77:460-467.

9 Senter, P and Juengst, SL, 2016. Record-breaking pain: the largest number and variety of forelimb bone maladies in a theropod dinosaur. PLoS ONE, 11(2):e0149140.

10 Rothschild, BM, Tanke, D, Hershkovitz, I and Schultz, M, 1998. Mesozoic neoplasia: origins of hemangioma in the Jurassic. Lancet, 351:1862.

11 Rothschild, BM, Witzke, BJ and Hershkovitz, I, 1999. Metastatic cancer in the Jurassic. Lancet, 354:398.

12 Rothschild, BM, 1997. Dinosaurian paleopathology, pp426-448 in Farlow, JO and Brett-Surman, MK (eds), The Complete Dinosaur. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

13 Ager, D, 1993. The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

14 Kanamori, H, 1977. The energy release of great earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 82:2981-2987.

15 Clube, SVM and Napier, WM, 1982. The role of episodic bombardment in geophysics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 57:251-262.

16 Walker, GPL, 1980. The Taupo pumice: product of the most powerful known (ultraplinian) eruption? Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 8:69-94.

17 Heiken, G, 1979. Pyroclastic flow deposits. American Scientist, 67:564-571.

18 Keller, T, 2008. The Reason for God. Hodder and Stoughton, London, p170.

19 One author, understanding the force of this objection to the old-Earth chronology, has sought to explain the hundreds of millions of years of death, suffering and other ‘natural evils’ before there were humans as the effects of the curse applied retroactively! See Dembski, WA, 2009. The End of Christianity. Broadman and Holman, Nashville, Tennessee.

Catharine Pakington reviews ‘Dementia: Frank and Linda’s Story’ by Louise Morse (2010, Monarch Books).

I was introduced to this book through the inspiring website of Dr Jennifer Bute, whose GP career was curtailed by early onset Alzheimer’s Disease:

Since then it has become my passion to try and help people understand about it, because I do believe it is a great opportunity, a God-given unexpected gift in order to understand this hurt section of society.

Dr Bute’s website offers resources giving an insider’s view of Alzheimer’s, to help doctors, relatives and carers respond positively.

Louise Morse takes up this theme of new understanding bringing new hope, especially for Christians who are pilgrims on a journey to Heaven. She co-authored an earlier book, ‘Could It Be Dementia? Losing Your Mind Doesn’t Mean Losing Your Soul’, which emphasised that people do not become worthless when they lose ability to remember or reason.

A former journalist, Louise is Media and Communications Manager with the Pilgrims’ Friend Society and also a counsellor and cognitive behavioural therapist. From her own experience, and that of others, she challenges readers to see that a person with dementia has not disintegrated, but is simply overshadowed. With understanding and support, the journey can even become a positive one as the individual continues to be recognised.

Based on a True Story

The author uses a narrative form, taking us through the true story of ‘Frank and Linda’, from the point at which Frank’s dementia is diagnosed and Linda adjusts to becoming his carer after many years of marriage. Morse depicts Linda using her knowledge of Frank to manage situations to maintain his contentment, avoiding triggers to anxiety or anger.

We follow the changes in their lives and how those around them cope and support – or do not. Their experiences are compared with those of others and we see how attitudes to dementia have changed in recent years.

Morse challenges readers to see that a person with dementia has not disintegrated.

From the outside it can seem that those with dementia are acting irrationally or living in imaginary worlds. Knowing a person’s history can help us recognise that what they are doing is consistent with the reality in which they are living, but it may be based on memories from the past.

Clattering from the kitchen prompted one man to hide under the table because it sounded like war-time bombing. A resident of a care home may say that they want to go home because something has happened that makes them feel unsafe. The approach encouraged by Morse is to “go with the flow” and to “get into their world”. We may think of doing that with children - but are we willing to seek the same understanding of the elderly?

Examples are given of long-established habits continuing and the calming effect of familiar words and songs. When other words may have been lost, a faithful Christian may still be able to quote Scripture, join in singing hymns or, in one example, repeat the names of those on her prayer list. I wonder what we are storing up that might come out of us when other abilities fail?

Challenge to Listen

Morse challenges us to listen to what patients are really trying to communicate, because it might not be what the words seem to say. As the numbers with dementia continue to increase we do not know who we might need to care for, or if we ourselves will one day be affected.

I used to take schoolchildren to visit a home specialising in dementia care. It was helpful to have resources to encourage the children to respect the residents with some understanding. Residents might not remember that we had been, but happy feelings could remain if we visited (and left) in the right way.

Uplifting and Practical

There are many uplifting stories in this book, but also much practical advice, including how to negotiate care homes, once residential care becomes necessary for the sake of the carer and the wellbeing of the one with dementia.

Each chapter ends with a summary of key ‘Points to Ponder’, which makes it easy to review sections, and a short section of devotions. It is a readable, accessible and practical book coming from a Christian perspective, that really does encourage hope.

Dementia: Frank and Linda’s Story (256pp, paperback and e-book) is available widely online, including on Amazon for £7.30.

Also by Louise Morse: Worshipping with Dementia: Meditations, Scriptures and Prayers for Sufferers and Carers (2010, Monarch Books) and Dementia: Pathways to Hope: Spiritual Insights and Practical Hope for Carers (2015, Monarch Books).

Charlie Gard and the sanctity of life debate.

What is life? When does it begin? When should it end?

Should we keep on life support those who have severely impaired faculties and quality of life?

Great Ormond Street Hospital is seeking to switch off the life support of critically ill baby Charlie Gard so that he may “die with dignity”, a phrase used by euthanasia supporters. However, this week Professor Michio Hirano, an expert in mitochondrial disease, flew in from the US to assess Charlie’s case and has said that a brain scan does not show evidence of irreversible damage from Charlie's rare genetic condition.¹ In recent hours the US Congress has granted Charlie and family permanent residence in the States if they wish to pursue Hirano's experimental treatment.²

Incidentally, it was revealed this week that Victoria Butler-Cole, the lawyer representing Charlie’s state-appointed guardian, heads a charity that supports assisted dying.³ So, has his case had a fair hearing?

In the same week that Charlie Gard’s case is being re-assessed, the High Court is hearing the legal challenge of a British man with motor neurone disease, dreading the progression of the disease and ‘locked-in’ syndrome, who wants to be granted a medically-assisted death.⁴

How should a Christian respond to distressing cases such as these, while staying faithful to the Bible’s teaching?

The answer is that we need to take a step back from the unsteady ground of human debate and plant our feet on the solid rock that is God’s word.

The True Value of Life

Human life is valuable not because of its quality, but because we are made in God’s image:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. (Genesis 9:6)

From conception to final breath, human life is valuable and no one has the right to destroy it wilfully: “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13).

How should a Christian respond to distressing cases such as Charlie Gard’s, while staying faithful to the Bible’s teaching?

We are created in God’s image, but we are also sinners who mar that image within us. Both our sinful nature and our awareness of the divine are present from conception:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place. (Ps 51:5-6)

God also foreknows us: Jeremiah was told,

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (Jer 1:5)

If we destroy life, we destroy God’s destiny and purpose for individuals and nations.

Jacob, Esau, Samson and Jesus himself were all described as beings of destiny and purpose from conception. Jesus was “God with us” from conception. He did not become divine at a later date.⁵

Logically, how could it be any other way? At what arbitrary point (which could vary between individuals) do we say a life in the womb passes the ‘value’ or ‘potential’ test?⁶

It may be the influence of Greek thought that has led us away from biblical truth and allowed us to draw distinctions between viable collections of physical cells and human life with potential for growth and personality. Greek philosophy teaches the separation of body and soul, whereas the Bible teaches that man is a nefesh, a “living being” (Gen 2:7), inextricably body and soul from the point of creation.

In fact, the Hebrew word nefesh is commonly translated as ‘soul’. Similarly, in English, an older use of the word soul implies rescue of the complete person, body and soul (as in SOS or Save Our Souls).

We need to take a step back from the unsteady ground of human debate and plant our feet on the solid rock that is God’s word.

Biblical Principles of Love and Protection

We accept that the Bible teaches us to care for our fellow man, so how can we sanction neglect or harm to the most vulnerable - those who cannot speak?

“Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:10). In other words, the whole of God’s Law (the Torah) is based on love and protection. Indeed, God’s law is summed up as: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” (a combination of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18).

Jesus told a story to epitomise that ‘royal law’, where a man treats a stranger’s medical emergency and pays for a form of hospital care.⁷ Helping the helpless and vulnerable, especially the stranger (without rights or voice), is a fundamental biblical principle: the sin of Sodom was not simply moral, rather, the residents outraged biblical decency by seeking to abuse and deny hospitality to strangers.⁸

It has been pointed out that the most inhospitable and dangerous place for any human being in today’s world is the womb. The place which should provide the utmost protection and care has become a grave for millions of human beings. Our end-of-life care centres are in danger of becoming similarly precarious places.

Trusting God’s Sovereignty

God’s word is absolute and we have to stand on its principles of absolute, divinely-revealed truth. Those who argue for assisted dying do so from a position of relative truth and situational ethics, seeking to extract overriding principles by pleading from the circumstances of individual sufferers. Indeed, it is with heart-wrenching personal cases that the media is redirecting the moral values of the nation away from God-given certainties.

Mature Christians know that they cannot exercise judgment based on relative truth and transitorily distressing and emotionally charged circumstances. Believers must stand on God’s promises and trust him to be the Sovereign Lord of all situations, even if upholding his principles becomes costly or difficult.

Believers must stand on God’s promises and trust him to be the Sovereign Lord, even if upholding his principles becomes costly.

Do we trust the Lord enough to allow him to govern all aspects of human suffering, while at the same time doing what we can to alleviate suffering and maintain life?

Keeping Charlie Gard on life support and allowing his parents to seek all possible treatment is biblically correct. By withdrawing life support, the medical team at GOSH would not be doing all they can to maintain life (which most doctors have sworn to do⁹). It would also be an unpleasant, slow way for the child to die and is effectively euthanasia because death is being chosen over life. If man possesses the power to sustain and treat him, then morally and scripturally, medics are obliged to exercise that ability.

If we believe that God is sovereign over life and death, then he can take the child to be with him at any point, whether on or off life support. If we think we must help God along by withdrawing life support, we are saying that God cannot take (or heal) the child unless we remove care. That implies that man is sovereign over life and death.

The Father’s Sacrificial Love

Just as human parents possess the unconditional love that should guide and decide their child’s treatment (unless their choices proceed from cruelty or conclusively injurious motives), so our Father God through his perfect love has the ultimate right to decide whether we live or die.

When we say that man should decide whether man lives or dies, we are denying that we have a Creator and a loving Heavenly Father, who knit us together in our mothers’ womb (Ps 139:13) and who demonstrated his love with the costliest sacrifice he could make.

When we say that unborn children and the seriously impaired (i.e. the voiceless) should be denied life or left to die, we should remember that God demonstrated his love when we too were helpless and vulnerable strangers to his promises (Eph 2:12, 19) in an inhospitable world: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Messiah died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Who should decide how our lives should begin and end? Surely the One who created us and laid down his own life for us.

References

1 Mendick, R. Charlie Gard's parents angry that baby's lawyer is head of charity that backs assisted dying. The Telegraph, 18 July 2017.

2 Forster, K. Charlie Gard granted permanent residence in US by Congress 'to fly to America for treatment'. The Independent, 20 July 2017.

3 See 1.

4 Walsh, F. Terminally ill man Noel Conway in right-to-die fight. BBC News, 17 July 2017.

5 References: Genesis 25:21-26; Judges 13:1-7; Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:39-45.

6 For an excellent study on this topic, see The Christian Institute’s ‘When does human life begin?’ by Dr John R Ling in their Salt and Light series.

7 The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37.

8 Genesis 19:1-29.

9 “Medical students usually take an oath when they graduate but there is no standard approach across the UK.” Oxtoby, K. Is the Hippocratic oath still relevant to practising doctors today? BMJ, 14 December 2016.

Mental illness is becoming the go-to explanation in the press for the recent spate of terror attacks. But this approach is not without problems.

Have you noticed that media coverage of the recent terror attacks across Europe has been littered with references to the mental health of the perpetrators? Without necessarily denying links to Islamic extremism, reports also keenly stress the role of psychological instability.

To take a few recent examples, according to the BBC, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the man responsible for the Nice lorry attack, reportedly "had a history of violence and mental instability".¹ Omar Mateen, the 29-year old responsible for the Orlando nightclub attack in June, "was violent and mentally unstable".²

The Ansbach suicide bomber (27-year old Syrian refugee Mohammad Daleel) was reported as having previously received psychiatric care following two suicide attempts, and Adel Kermiche, who murdered French priest Jacques Hamel in the Rouen attack, had apparently received treatment for mental disorders as a teenager.³

London Stabbings

Most recently, this week's stabbing in London led the Met Police very quickly to point to "mental health issues" as a possible explanation, whilst repeatedly emphasising that terrorism is just one of many possible lines of enquiry and that so far there is "no evidence of radicalisation".⁴

Of course, not all recent attacks have been described in this manner. Nevertheless, a cross-media narrative is certainly emerging which holds 'mental health issues' as the go-to explanation for the recent spate of terror attacks in Europe. Only in the last few days have others begun to point out the problems with this approach.⁵

A cross-media narrative is emerging which holds 'mental health issues' as the go-to explanation for the recent spate of terror attacks in Europe.

Complex Concept – Not Catch-All Explanation

The highly complex relationship between mental health and violent behaviour is not well understood. Individuals driven to such terrible actions as we have witnessed in recent weeks must themselves be severely disturbed – mentally deluded, corrupted or oppressed. To deny the presence of psychological problems in this context could be dangerous.

For Christians, belief in the existence of a spiritual realm necessarily provokes questions about the influence of demonic spirits. But the secular press ignores such things and rushes to explain away what is going on purely by a catch-all reference to mental health problems, which though convenient, can be severely misleading.

Will Gore of The Independent has argued that "The media glosses over the specifics in favour of creating a kind of homogenised bogeyman figure: a religious fundamentalist afflicted by mental illness and immune to rationality".⁶ His argument is that the media's first response to any attack is to suspect jihadism, the second response is to expect mental health issues, and the third response is to conflate the two, oversimplifying and demonising them both.

This is visible in the term 'Islamopsychosis', which is gaining traction online, and also in yesterday's Daily Express, which claimed that ISIS might be deliberately targeting mentally unstable people to encourage them to carry out attacks.⁷

The complex relationship between mental health and violent behaviour is not well understood, but the secular press ignores such things.

Explanation or Distraction?

So, whilst our security services are working around the clock to try to understand the complex processes behind radicalisation, the general public are being sold a different and much simpler narrative – these attackers are just crazy religious people!

This sits neatly with the 'Islam is a religion of peace' doctrine; any Muslim who turns to terror is not practising a true form of their faith – they are simply mentally unstable. So the public is deceived and deluded about the incursion of jihad (radical Islam) into Europe. The secular humanist values of multi-faith 'tolerance' remain intact.

But if we ignore the links of attackers to radical Islam, we close down proper debate and divert attention away from the real reasons behind the attacks. We end up blaming mental health for the things we do not understand and dismissing anything beyond our comprehension or in discord with our own worldview.

Mark Brown of The Independent commented yesterday:

When such events break the reasoned quiet and order of our lives, we look for ways to make ourselves safe, ways to fit the shock of such attacks into our existing ways of thinking and understanding of the world. We want an explanation for what feels beyond comprehension...⁸

The 'mental health' narrative is fast becoming the pacifying response that somehow makes us feel more comfortable and in control of a threatening and unpredictable situation. But this leaves us deceived about the full truth and irrationally prejudiced about both Muslims and those suffering from mental health problems.

The 'mental health' narrative is fast becoming the pacifying response that somehow makes us feel more in control of a threatening situation.

Danger for Christians

The great danger of all this cover-up for Christians will be the next stage in the deception. As the secular media begin dismissing all terrorism as the action of crazy religious fundamentalists, this will only be a stepping stone to saying that all religious people are mentally deluded – especially those who can be labelled 'fundamentalist'. This is the final goal of our secular humanist society.

Paul warned about the coming of a great delusion in the last days. In the first chapter of Romans, he spoke of people suppressing the truth about God and creation, leading God to give them over to a depraved mind and them becoming filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, depravity and violence.

When writing to the Thessalonians, in reference to the 'man of lawlessness' being let loose into the world, Paul said that people perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved. He said "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness" (2 Thess 2:11).

As terrorism is increasingly dismissed as the action of crazy religious fundamentalists, it will then be easy to assert that all religious people are mentally deluded.

Shine Like Stars

Only a lost and broken world would try to explain away one terrifying problem it doesn't understand with another it understands even less – shifting fear from one base to another.

For Christians, it is important that we guard our hearts, so we do not allow ourselves to be drawn under the powerful, delusional influence of fear currently shrouding Europe. It is also important that we brace ourselves and learn the full truth about Islam – because we're not going to get it from the BBC.

In an increasingly panic-stricken time we are given the opportunity to shine like stars in the universe (Phil 2:15), holding out the beautiful gifts for which the entire world is searching: TRUTH, HOPE and PEACE. It is time for the Church to stop hiding its light under a bowl – the world needs it now.

References

1 Attack on Nice: Who was Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel? BBC News, 18 July 2016.

2 Orlando nightclub shooting: How the attack unfolded. BBC News, 15 June 2016.

3 Knife attack raises fears of Isis targeting people with mental health problems. The Express, 4 August 2016.

4 Russell Square stabbings: Man arrested on suspicion of murder. BBC News, 4 August 2016.

5 E.g. Brown, M. Mentally ill people are the collateral damage of news reports about the Russell Square stabbings. The Independent, 4 August 2016.

6 Gore, W. Mental illness has become a convenient scapegoat for terrorism – but the causes of terror are rarely so simple. The Independent, 25 July 2016.

7 See note 3.

8 See note 5.