God the Slave-owner

The question of assisted suicide is complex and difficult and I do not propose to have a simple answer to it. However, I do feel it requires a more thoughtful (and humane) approach than this farrago by the Archbishop of York:

Christians believe that their lives are given by God and that everyone has an important role to play in society. We do not believe that we own our individual lives and therefore we believe we should not choose to end them deliberately. [emphasis added]

It might not have occurred to the Archbishop that he has just defined every living human as the chattel of God. In blunter terms, this is known as slavery.

Of course, one can hardly expect clear thinking from a man who would also say, “A truly caring society would not devalue or pressurise its most vulnerable and frailest members” while arguing for the criminalisation of decisions that said vulnerable and frail members might happen to make on their own behalf.

Tags: , , , ,

3 People have left comments on this post



» Peter Hollo said: { Sep 25, 2009 - 02:09:10 }

Yes.

» Adp said: { Sep 27, 2009 - 02:09:21 }

I agree that the Archbishop has implicitly defined all humans as the slaves of God. I’m not sure why you assume he hasn’t thought this through. In Christianity, this description has been explicitly used fairly frequently, including in the Gospels (see eg http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6ZI7XKt7TEAC&lpg=PA198&dq=%22slave%20of%20God%22&client=firefox-a&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q=%22slave%20of%20God%22&f=false, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nCbmfvg_quwC&lpg=PA18&dq=%22slave%20of%20God%22&client=firefox-a&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=%22slave%20of%20God%22&f=false) – and similar metaphors are used in other religions, like Islam (abd Allah) and Hinduism (deva dasi). It strikes me as a rather obvious way to describe the relation between humans and an omnipotent being with the right and power to punish or reward them. Whether you like this worldview is of course another matter.

» Chris Lawson said: { Sep 27, 2009 - 10:09:36 }

Hi, Adp. The Archbishop’s letter contains so many poorly-constructed statements that it does not incline one to believe the man is much given to thinking things through. Seriously, he actually wrote that everyone has the right to have their rights protected. There are many other lapses of logic, intelligence, and just plain compassion, but I thought the “right to have rights” was a particularly good example of a hamfisted argument, especially in an opinion piece arguing that people have the right not to have certain rights.

More specifically, though, the Christian attitude to slavery has changed considerably since the early gospels. The view of every major Christian denomination today is that slavery is a grotesque evil. I can’t imagine the Archbishop wants to reverse that view, nor can I imagine that he would like to claim that slavery is an abomination except when God does it.

When the Archbishop asks for his own code of ethics to be forced upon everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, by criminal statute then he owes us a much better explanation than that we are all God’s slaves and should do what the Archbishop says God wants us to do. If this is so, then the Archbishop has taken upon himself the role of God’s trusty, and may he choke on his collar.

Finally, I am sorry that you see slavery as an obvious way to describe the relation between humans and an omnipotent God who punishes and rewards. Even though I don’t believe in an omnipotent God who rewards and punishes, I can still imagine other, far more positive analogies. Parent, for instance. Or teacher. Or commanding officer. These descriptions are quite popular amongst believers, I am told. Shepherd comes to mind. Perhaps the psalms should be rewritten to better describe the obvious.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.