The life and death of Terri Schiavo was a remarkable and important prophetic event that captured the attention of not only the entire nation, but much of the world. The issues raised by this sad tragedy are some of the most basic issues related to both righteousness and justice, which can affect us all. If the church is to be “the light of the world” then we must address the important events of our time with the light of God’s truth, which is clearly established in the Scriptures.
There is a reason why the first test of Solomon’s wisdom was over the issue of the value of life. The most fundamental test of any government’s devotion to both righteousness and justice will be its value for life. Because the Great Commission is to make disciples “of all the nations,” (Matthew 28:19) there is a special way that the church is called to reach the nations and to teach them. There is also a special way that the nations will be judged.
The Lord said that when He returns He is going to divide the nations into groups of either sheep or goats (see Matthew 25:31-46). It is being determined now which of these groups our nations will be in. In this parable we also see that the main determining factor of whether a nation will be considered just or unjust is in how it treats individuals. It seems obvious that in the case of Terri Schiavo, our nation failed this test in a most shocking and cruel way. A living person who was conscious and aware was denied food and water by the government until she starved to death.
How could such a thing happen in a “civilized” country? Who was it in our government that failed this test and why? Was it the government in general? Was it the executive or legislative branches, or the courts? This is a question that does demand an answer. There was unquestionably a most basic failure here of either the system or individuals who are seated in positions of power in this situation. If it was the system, then the system needs fixing. If it was an individual or group, we must understand how they were allowed to do this.
In seeking an answer, I do not want to attribute any kind of evil intent on the part of anyone involved. This is not to imply that there was not some of this, but I would like to first focus on issues that are bigger than individual intent. I also think that any kind of revenge or even resentment is contrary to the faith, and should have no place here.
I want to share a personal experience. My father had a stroke and went into septic shock. At one point, he had six problems, any of which should have been fatal. To treat one aggravated the others. We prayed for his life, and he lived, as a complete invalid for two years. He could turn his head a bit, smile, frown, or occasionally get one word out, but it was terrible to watch him in that state. Because we did not want to put him in a nursing home, we kept him in our home. Seeing him in that state was one of the hardest things that I have ever gone through.
Even though he did have some joy, and I asked him continually if the Lord was speaking to him and if he was using his time to pray, he always affirmed that he was. I often wondered if those were the two most fruitful years of his life spiritually, and I also wondered every day if we had done the right thing in praying for his life. I prayed daily that neither I, nor any other of my family or friends would have to go through that kind of existence.
I am not saying that what the husband or the judges did in the case of Terri Schiavo was right, but I can say that I understand it. I do not know what was in their hearts or minds at the time, but I Corinthians 13 and other biblical exhortations demand that we think the best of someone, not the worst. However, what was done was terribly wrong. How it was also done was terribly wrong, and we should demand that the system or the problem be fixed so that it does not happen again.
As Paul Zink, pastor of New Life Church in Jacksonville, Florida said to me recently, there is a “law of the Spirit of life,” and “the law of sin and death” (see Romans 8:2). For several decades, the courts in the U.S. have consistently sided with what the Scriptures call the “law of sin and death,” defending and protecting sin and unrighteousness, as well as death. Our courts have sided with the right to murder the most helpless of all, and have consistently eroded the right to life, as well as the rights of those who would speak for or in other ways defend the right to life or righteousness. To use the metaphor or the first test of Solomon’s wisdom, they are consistently choosing the wrong mother whose carelessness with life only results in death.
How was Laci Peterson’s husband convicted of a double murder, for her and her unborn child, if the unborn are “just fetuses” as the abortionists claim? How can our courts be so inconsistent and get away with it? It is obvious that clear definitions are being changed for someone’s whim.
Though there is remarkable inconsistency in our courts at this time, the overall trend in the courts has been consistent in its direction of choosing “the law of sin and death” over “the law of the Spirit of life.” They have done this even when it is in basic conflict with the most fundamental right that our government and law is based on—the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” They choose “the law of sin and death” even when it is in conflict with the laws passed by the other branches of government, which are there to interpret and uphold, not change.
Very basically, it is the legislature that writes the laws in our form of government, the judicial branch interprets them, and the executive branch carries them out. No government or any judicial system in this age is going to be perfect. They will in fact have many flaws until the kingdom of God comes. Even so, democracy is by far the best, most fair and righteous form of government on earth. I believe our judicial system is as well. However, even the best form of government will be bad government if bad people are in it. Bad laws will be written if bad people are elected to the legislature. Bad judgments will be issued if bad judges are seated. There will also be a bad execution of the law if there is not good leadership in the executive branch.
The American judicial system is not perfect, but even with its present, increasingly obvious flaws it is the most fair or just in the world. However, in recent times, many judges have alarmingly gone beyond their constitutional authority to interpret the law, and are trying to write the law of the land with their decisions or mandates. These are the ones who are called “activist judges.” These activist judges have consistently tried to force “the law of sin and death” on the nation and have been succeeding. It is time to take a stand against this.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights given to all Americans by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but an activist in the judicial branch has been successful in gradually, but profoundly eroding these basic rights. As was witnessed in the case of Judge Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court, anyone who sought to stand in the way of that agenda has been quickly dispatched. The Terri Schiavo case has highlighted this trend of the activists in the judicial, forcing their agenda in such a dramatic and powerful way that an effective reaction to it is now very likely. Not only was she deprived of her basic right to life, but she was killed in a most cruel and inhumane way—starvation, because it was basically said that her husband had more of a right to kill her than she had the right to live.
The legal question in this issue was whether Terri’s husband had the right to have Terri starved to death. Should any person have the right to kill another has an obvious answer in “the law of the Spirit of life.” No. Should a person have the right to starve another to death, which is even more heinous? This is torture of the worst kind. It seems there is a great deal of evidence that Terri was both aware and responsive. If there was even the slightest chance that a person is aware, starvation would be considered incomprehensible. The heartrending shock value of this case has caused the kind of reaction that could help bring the judicial back into balance.
Of course, those who promote “the law of sin and death” will respond to this reaction saying that we should not try to legislate morality, but the truth is that immorality has been legislated, mandated, and forced upon the moral. Those who have been demanding tolerance of everyone else have been the most intolerant of all in relation to anyone who differed with them. Unable to legislate their agenda, they have effectively used activist judges to mandate their agenda and force it on the country. This has been a major encroachment of the judicial on the authority of the other branches of government, and the people.
In the last election, in every case when an issue was put to popular vote that had to do with basic morality as defined by the Scriptures, the people voted for righteousness by a wide margin. The church in America is awakening, and change will come. We are called to be the light of the world, so if darkness is now increasing it is happening on our watch. We have a responsibility to stand up for truth, righteousness, and justice. None of us can afford to sit back and let this happen on our watch if we want to hear on that great judgment day, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:21).
