One of the recurring themes in RP theology is doctrines that are created to answer a specific question, but then get turned into a lens through which all things must be judged. Or maybe all things that we don't like get judged through that lens and the things we don't want to question are never to be questioned.
As an example, the "Regulative Principle of Worship" sounds good and simple - we don't do stuff in worship without a clear scriptural warrant (command or example). So, having mid-service announcements, or a mission update or something that isn't cool like that gets kicked out. It was originally, in my understanding, used to question the idolization of the communion elements (the host) in Catholic services. But, if you ask an RP pastor why we baptize people in worship, when there is neither command, nor example, nor even necessary consequence, they will end the conversation in record time. Remember that Hebrew infants were circumcised "on the eighth day", so no example there, and NT baptisms occurred immediately on profession of faith, without any indication that the congregation had to be gathered or even that it was done in a worship service.
So, it's not surprising that RP leaders would dredge up another woefully inadequate doctrine to nitpick reproductive health. This time, the Doctrine of Double Effect. Thomas Aquinas is supposedly the first theologian who argues this, in Summa Theologiae - I use https://aquinasonline.com/double-effect/ as the source of the discussion of the original.
Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful. (ST II-II 64,7)
The original statement seems pretty reasonable. I can take an action that has a bad effect, as long as my intent is good, and the bad effect does not outweigh the good effect. But, as with other things, the devil is in the details. The action becomes the object of scrutiny. The article above continues:
1. One may only intend a good or morally neutral action. One may never intend an intrinsically evil action, an action that is inherently evil. Intrinsically or inherently evil acts have an object which is disordered, i.e., which reason recognized as opposed or thwarting some human good. Some examples intrinsically evil actions are lying, fornication, adultery, murder (intentionally, directly killing another human being), suicide.
2. The good action, or at least a morally neutral action, that one does intend has two effects: a good effect which one intends to achieve, and an evil side-effect, which one does not intend (even though it may be foreseen), but which is tolerated.
3. The evil effect cannot be the means of achieving the good effect, for this would be equivalent of intending evil to bring about good, and so go against Romans 3:8.
4. There must be proportionality between the good intended and the evil tolerated. The good to be achieved must outweigh the evil tolerated; one cannot allow significant evil effects for a trivial reason.
Unfortunately, the codification of the rule (which has persisted, like the codification of the Regulative Principle of Worship) ends up destroying the original argument.
Aquinas says very little about the action itself, other than the intent, but the Aquinas scholars start gatekeeping the action. "Good or morally neutral action". The problem here is that killing is not, in and of itself, a morally neutral action. Aquinas doesn't weigh in on the morality of the action itself, but on the intent and the balance. If killing someone is necessary to save a life, and the saving of the life is a better outcome than the loss of life, then the action of killing someone is justified.
To give a better example of this, a topic I remember coming up a lot is the Surprise Party paradox. Maybe paradox isn't the best word. But here's what Geneva Freshmen discuss at the lunch table. Let's say your roommate has a birthday coming up and you want to throw them a surprise party. At what point are you breaking God's law? What if you say that you're going to take them to a movie, but you're really not going to take them to a movie. Maybe you can plan to take them to a movie a few days later and now you're not lying. But, what (horrors!) if your roommate asks you point blank, ARE YOU PLANNING A SURPRISE PARTY? Now you must choose between obedience to God (telling your roommate the truth) or the fun, that you think your roommate will enjoy, of being surprised and celebrated?
The debate, like the Aquinas scholars, turns into gatekeeping the action. Lying is NEVER permissible, therefore, telling your roommate that you're not planning a surprise party is sinful, even though the INTENT of telling your roommate a lie is something you believe to be the greater good - a well-executed surprise party that they will enjoy much more than realizing they were lied to.
This is where it becomes unhinged. For example, people erroneously believe that an undercover cop is morally required to admit to being a cop if asked directly, "are you a cop?". Christians would then have difficulty with being a spy "are you a spy?" Soldiers would have difficulty - "can I bomb a city knowing there will be civilians killed", or even "should I try to kill this enemy soldier if I could incapacitate him by shooting both his kneecaps?"
I think this is why Aquinas avoided nitpicking the action itself and focused on the intended and unintended consequences. Even killing is okay if the intended consequence (saving life) outweighs the unintended consequence (killing an aggressor).
Why does this matter?
The RP church appointed a study committee to decide on a revision of the RP Testimony from the current "Deliberately induced abortion, except possibly to save the mother’s life, is murder." to "Deliberately induced abortion is murder."
The study committee rationalized this using the "Doctrine of Double Effect" to pontificate that the ACTION of a chemical abortion, even if an abortion is required to save the life of the mother, and the baby has no chance of survival, is murder. So, again, gatekeeping the action itself, the action of abortion is never permissible, under any circumstances. Instead mothers who have an ectopic pregnancy must have their fallopian tube removed (a "morally neutral action"), even if the consequence is reduced fertility and the death of the unborn child, because chemical abortion cannot be morally neutral.
So, in doing this, the RP church (as they often do) ruled broadly on an extremely narrow case, in order to victimize and harm women, but as a consequence have made all sorts of things immoral.
- Self-defense is now immoral. Harming or killing someone cannot be a morally neutral, thus self-defense is sinful. The intent of saving life doesn't matter because the action of killing a person is not morally neutral.
- The death penalty is now immoral for the same reasons, even though it seems God commands it.
- Spying is immoral
- Amputation is immoral - the act of cutting someone's limb off is not in itself morally neutral even if it is done for the intent of saving the person's life
So, the Aquinas scholars (and current RP leaders) miss Aquinas's point altogether. The action itself is sinful in most circumstances. There's no getting around that, that this doctrine is the exception rather than the rule. It's sinful to lie, EXCEPT... It's sinful to kill, EXCEPT... Instead they turn it into this legalistic checkbox where we try to fool God. "I didn't INTEND to kill the baby, but I removed the fallopian tube and the baby just happened to die." (Is God fooled by this?) "I didn't INTEND to kill civilians, but I dropped a bomb on an industrial facility at 9AM that was producing drones so that the workers would be incapacitated" (Again, is God fooled?) "I didn't intend to poke my mugger's eyes out to stop him from attacking me, but, yes, I took my car keys and hit him in the eye."
If killing an unborn baby to save the life of the mother is immoral, is God really going to look away because you took out the fallopian tube instead of cutting the baby out, or taking a drug to kill the baby?
15 comments:
The paper tries to superimpose WLC 135, which prohibits "unjust taking away the life of any" over the doctrine of double effect to create this narrow thread of acceptable practice (removing the fallopian tube, which has the "foreseen, but unintended consequence" of killing the unborn baby)
This logic, however, fails another test of the DDE - the trolley problem. Let's say that an uncontrolled trolley is headed downhill into a crowd of 100 people. We expect all will die from the expected collision. You are near a switch, but the other track has 10 people. The DDE posits that you can switch the car sinlessly because saving 100 lives is arguably better than killing 10 people. However, in this case, by switching the car, you are (by the paper's logic) taking away the life of those 10 people "unjustly" by intervening.
And, as I said, I think that the original formulation has been perverted in such a way that destroys the doctrine.
You can't take abortion medication for an ectopic pregnancy because it will kill the baby, but it's OK to remove the fallopian tube and kill the baby? How is this not akin to the Pharisaical workarounds of Mark 7:10-13?
I wonder how much of this is simply misogynistic - that is, not primarily about the harm to the baby, but the idea that we must punish women. In this case, for having an ectopic pregnancy. Some fetal rights laws were sold as protecting women, but when passed were used to prosecute women for being complicit in miscarriages.
It's not surprising that a patriarchal church (again, sold as this is how God intends for women to be cared for) ends up being more misogynistic than caring.
Whatever way you look at it, they're swallowing camels.
I'm sorry, I can't let go of this...
You mean that when they come before the judgement seat of God Almighty, who knows every heart, they are going to say, "I didn't mean to kill the baby, I only meant to take out the fallopian tube"? Do they REALLY think that the Lord is unable to see through such schemes and they will be left with any excuse? At least be honest and say what you actually intended rather than cling to your hypocritical works-righteousness! When both the effect AND the true intent are that the baby should die, surely you should plead that you did the best you could in a no-win situation in a fallen world, and throw yourself on the mercy of the only wise and compassionate Judge?
I remember being like that - I had this underlying assumption that there was always ONE right choice, ONE right path. Sometimes there is, but lots of times there aren't. Do I take a lunch to work or do I eat out? I think the culture and tendency in RP-like circles is to "tithe the mint and cumin" - nitpick each decision to the nth degree, while "neglecting the weightier matters".
In these sorts of cases, the legalist ends up at the conclusion of letting them both die because not taking action and letting nature take its course does not (in their minds) personally implicate them with sin. I think this is the mind of the priest and Levite in the Good Samaritan - better to avoid problems than take action and be unclean.
I think the weightier matter that comes out is the hatred of women. The paper says, essentially, that we should weigh the baby's life higher than the mothers' life because we are somehow naturally biased towards the person we know. So, if the doctor has to pick between the life of the mother or the life of the child, obviously, the mother should die. (And there are still women in the RP church, shockingly!)
I certainly don't want to be a legalist at judgment day trying to find all the loopholes that let me treat those around me with scorn and hatred. I would rather be the person who says I tried to love people to the best of my ability because that's I see you doing.
“The abortion pill regimen, which includes mifepristone and misoprostol, is specifically designed to terminate pregnancies that are located within the uterus. It is important to note that this medication does not treat an ectopic pregnancy and is ineffective for pregnancies located outside the uterus.”
I have never heard of using medication to deal with ectopics.
About the spying bit: well, they don’t really believe that one is a sin. They may have re-defined that one, like many other things.
Also, the language said “… In cases of pregnancy in which the life of the mother or the unborn child is threatened, all medically reasonable measures should be taken to honorably care for the lives and bodies of both mother and child.”
It seems this fact has been omitted. A new blog will need to be started for former RPCNA’s who want to highlight the truth about this harmful denomination, while staying in the lane of honesty.
"It seems this fact has been omitted." What fact? I'm referring to the committee report, "Position Paper of the Study Committee RE: Abortion to the Synod of 2026"
That quote is not in the study committee report, and, in fact, this is what the report says about "both woman and child":
"It is essential that we also address the issue of emotional involvement. While the lives of mother and child are biblically and objectively equal, it is usually (and understandably) difficult to maintain this perspective in the real-life scenario of a crisis during pregnancy. The mother is known and loved. She is a wife, a daughter, or a beloved member of the congregation. There are people who cannot imagine life without her. On the other hand, the child is unknown. There are no fond memories to pull our heartstrings and no history that intertwines the life of this person with church or family.
This is perhaps the main reason that we entertain an exception to the prohibition of deliberate abortion “to save the mother’s life.” It is our emotional instinct to save the life we know, and that instinct is very human. Pastors and elders must be aware of this bias within themselves and the congregation, yet the solution is not to attempt to discard that emotional reality in favor of cold objectivity. At the same time, out of love for the mother, we cannot harden our hearts against the child she carries, whose life is fearfully and wonderfully made. The real solution is to recognize that, in a life-threatening circumstance while pregnant, we do not have to decide whose life is more important. No one must be killed, even if one or both lives are in danger. Both lives are precious, and the goal should be to save both mother and child, if at all possible."
Besides being ridiculous on its face "no one must be killed", these paragraphs subtly suggest that perhaps the baby ought to be considered more precious than the mother because we are naturally biased towards the mother.
"The most common drug used to treat ectopic pregnancy is methotrexate. This drug stops cells from growing, which ends the pregnancy. The pregnancy then is absorbed by the body over 4–6 weeks. This does not require the removal of the fallopian tube."
https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/ectopic-pregnancy
"A new blog will need to be started for former RPCNA’s who want to highlight the truth about this harmful denomination, while staying in the lane of honesty."
If this is the person who said we'd probably like each other in person, stuff like this certainly isn't making your case.
Sorry, I did find the wording. I don't think it's dishonest because the wording does say that, but the reasoning undoes it. Consider ectopic pregnancies. They say there are three methods, removing the fallopian tube, removing the embryo from the fallopian tube, or using methotrexate to terminate the embryo. In this case, the baby will die whether or not there is medical intervention, and the mother will die without medical intervention. But to "honorably care" for both mother and child, the only religiously-acceptable practice is to remove the fallopian tube, potentially leaving the mother infertile. So, when both mother and child can't be honorably cared for, we must choose the child (who is going to die no matter what) over the mother. This is the checkbox the RPCNA believes must be satisfied so that God will ignore the sin of murder. God can only be morally satisfied with the bloodguiltiness of the child if the mother is also harmed? This smacks of misogyny to me - it's not about trying to save the mother's life. It's about sufficiently punishing the mother, because the moral objection is satisfied by a chemical abortion - because the chemical abortion has the double effect of saving the mother's life and killing the child, and saving one life is superior to letting both die.
I want to clarify this based on an example. Let's say I propose a law: "All women must pay a $100 tax per month". In the justification for the law, I say that woman are an excess drain on our societal infrastructure because they strain our police departments due to domestic disputes and sexual violence, and are a strain on medical facilities due to childbirth. But, then in the end, I say, "we do this because we have love and respect for all women".
There's obviously going to be debate about the law being misogynistic, but the proponents of the law say, "but look it says right here 'we have love and respect for all women'". I don't think saying "honorably care for ... both mother and child" is justified when their rationale says that we must harm the mother in order to appease God for the death of the child. Is that "honorable care"?
We would definitely not like each other. But what does like matter? We either love or don’t love. As for my case, I don’t have one. Things are either true or false, and what you or I or anyone makes of them is irrelevant. People defecting from this church are strong. They are brave, without a doubt. But they are vulnerable and will go through varying levels of pain they will need to process and work through for a while. What they need is solid support, not indoctrination in the opposite direction. They will be vulnerable to the swing of this pendulum as they navigate either towards or away from God. While your blog is enormously helpful in many places, in others it is confusing and very sad; in the only positive sense I can see this sadness, it illustrates the ongoing fallout of a mind, separated from a harmful denomination, but completely untethered from the psychological underpinnings that keep that harm ‘alive and well,’ progressively degenerating the mind of the sufferer. So yes, a blog that is more balanced, and that does not stray from its objective, is needed. Hurting, confused, broken peopled need grounding in the bare essentials of the Faith, not a different brand of indoctrination, which I personally believe lives throughout this blog and thoroughly detracts from anything life-giving. People leave because they know something is wrong. Dissecting that wrong isn’t what I would say is helpful in early phase. Bad theology can be deconstructed only by first becoming grounded in a foundation of what is true, and that is only found in Jesus- in the Bible. Everything else is a distraction and a deterrent to that initial growth. The time will come to understand and process how a person got lost in that ‘church.’ It will be another stage of grief. But it’s a beautiful thing to allow it to happen naturally as a person’s eyes are opened by Jesus. You have every right to your ideas and free speech; I’m only stating that, in my opinion, the time has come for a more stable voice for those leaving the RPCNA. You talk as a dissenting voice within the RPCNA (and there are many there, some hidden for now), not as one who has actually come out of that Egypt. People need to come out of that Egypt, and the journey will be long. They will wonder if they should turn back. We need our eyes on Jesus or we will complain the whole way, fall into other errors, and never leave the wilderness.
I always feel like asking you one simple question: Do you want to be healed?
One thing that is characteristic of RPs is thinking they know everything and especially that they can fix everyone's problems. It comes off as very patronizing. You come off as very patronizing. Just because you _think_ you're better than me doesn't make it a fact, and even if you are better than me, whatever, I'm not interested in what "healing" you have to offer because everything you've demonstrated here, self-righteousness, contempt and sanctimony is 100% the opposite of what I need to heal.
No one is forcing you to be here, it obviously isn't edifying for you, so why are you here? Start your own blog. You can be all that. People have e-mailed me that this is helpful, and beyond that, it's therapeutic for me to occasionally make comments on what the RPCNA has been and where it's going.
Post a Comment