Life Belongs to God⤒🔗

God is the Creator of life. We, as people, do not make life. We are actively involved and are responsible beings in the procreation of the human race. The human act of the conception of children is nowadays sometimes described as “the making of children” or as “bringing children into the world.” These descriptions represent a feeling of power. Previously we have discussed the term autonomy. Whoever says that he is “making” a child fancies himself autonomous in the creation of a person.

This autonomy is fictitious. This becomes very clear when we think of those married couples who would so love to have a child, but remain infertile. How much is done to the point of exhaustion to procure a child. Often, in such situations of intense longing, it does not work. I am not going to speak about all kinds of possibilities such as artificial insemination with the sperm of a donor or of test tube fertilization. I am only confirming that it is not up to man to “make” a child. The Bible speaks clearly about children as created by God.

Life Is No Absolute Magnitude←⤒🔗

That man is included in the procreation by God the Creator and is therefore addressed about his responsibility, is already emphatically stated in Genesis 1:26-28.

Even as life in its origin is the work of God the Creator, even so man is called to respect that life, to maintain it, and to protect it. That does not say that life is man’s greatest good. As believers, we do not speak of absolute reverence for life. That reverence may never be separated from God the Creator. He is the absolute Lord over life. We do not place life as an absolute magnitude in his place. Whoever does so, commits idolatry with life. In the history of philosophy, there is a movement called vitalism. In this philosophical line of thought, which actually opposes the doctrine of life, life is given absolute magnitude. It is entirely separated from God.

I am not defending vitalism in any form. God created life, as is apparent in Genesis 1. His lordship is also over propagation of life. He grants everyone life and breath and everything (Acts 17:25). Life and death are in his hand (Ps. 104:29, 30). There God is portrayed as the one who sends the Spirit who gives life. God ends life and raises it up again. He shatters and heals (Deut. 32:3a; 1 Sam. 2:6). Paul points out more than once that life and death are not autonomous magnitudes, independent of God. They fall under God’s authority and disposal (Rom. 8:3, 39; Col. 1:16) Paul himself says to the believers that life and death, just as the present and the future, are yours, provided that you belong to Christ and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22, 23).

How life from the very beginning in the womb of the mother is the work of God, is described in detail in Psalm 139:14-18. This is described in poetic language in Job 10:9-12.

Concurring with this, it is totally fitting that Paul says of the believers, in life and death they belong to the Lord (Rom. 14:7-9). That lordship infers authority over and security within because of the right of ownership.

There are two reasons for believers to acknowledge that they belong to God: 1) They received life from God. He is their Creator; 2) They have, in a certain way, received life from him again through the redemption in Christ Jesus. His lordship means the restoration of his authority over their lives. In the act of believing, they surrender themselves to him. They again acknowledge his authority. Therefore, Christ is called their life (Col. 3:4; Phil. 1:21).

In this, we do not want to ignore the fact that people are called to give their lives for the sake of Christ. (Rom. 16:3; Phil. 2:30). There have been people who have died as martyrs (Heb. 11). Here one could also think about Samson. His self chosen death was not just a form of suicide. Whoever interprets his death in this way, misses the calling and the redemptive-historical context of Samson’s life and death (Judg. 16:28-30).

I also remind you that the Old Testament speaks repeatedly of people who were satisfied with life. They have finished their tasks and can go in peace: Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:28), Job (Job 42:17), and David (1 Chron. 29:28). Life, for them, was not the greatest magnitude. It was a gift for them, which they enjoyed and with which they became satisfied.

I would also point out that death is the punishment of God for sin (Gen. 2:17, 3:19; Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:27). Also for this reason it is wrong to make life to be an absolute magnitude. That could be a form of rebellion against judgment. This does not mean that in days of sickness we may not seek healing, nor that we must resign ourselves to sickness. It does signify that, when God sends death, a moment comes when we reverently draw back. When is that commanded?

The Difficult Questions←⤒🔗

May we want to give up? May we say, It has been enough? I am leaving this life. May I die when I have reached this point? Must I continue to live?

These questions are very fundamental. I have already pointed out that we are inclined by our emotions to say spontaneously: There is a limit. It has been enough now. We are also inclined to ask: what is the purpose of this degrading life? I am aware that putting such questions on paper opens one to criticism. Still, I do not want to forgo writing them down. Out of the formulation of such questions, I hope to make it clear that we also ask them. In fact, such questions do not pass us by. We must also be able to see our way through them. We are not giving pastoral advice or dealing with ethical issues in theory. We are standing in the middle of everyday practice.

Deciding about Life and Death Yourself?←⤒🔗

The most popular solution is the one in which people claim the right for themselves to end life when they feel that it has been enough. This solution is supported by diverse sections of society. There are also Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians who support this point of view.

It is clear that this point of view originates with the thoughts of the autonomists. Man himself has the right to make decisions. He has his own responsibility. There are Christians who think the thoughts of autonomy are very compatible with Christian beliefs. They argue that God gives people the space to make these decisions themselves. This reminds me of a report “Euthanasia and pastoral care,” that gained a lot of acceptance in the Dutch Reformed and Reformed Churches. The following thought process is found in the report. People have been given responsibility by God. For that reason, people may make decisions themselves. The idea of responsibility implies the thought that people must be answerable for their actions. They must have reasons for what they do and what they decide not to do. They must be able to present arguments to justify or to excuse their actions. Kuitert rephrased and answered that in a somewhat provoking manner as follows: The reference to “God’s time” which could have come by this time, is an attempt to saddle the Almighty with a decision which we ourselves have made. Now, in the first place, the Almighty is not there to take the difficult decisions out of our hands; this evolves to what is classically referred to as: misuse of the name of the Lord (1989, p.98). Beforehand he already wrote: For believers, this signifies: the request for an easy death is not in conflict with entrusting oneself to the leadership of God. On the contrary, a person who is a Christian may justify such a step before God, after prayer to God and after discussion with fellow Christians (1989, p.96).

It is not possible for me to have these thoughts. From what is revealed to us in the Bible, it is evident that we do not hold our lives in our own hands. We also may not take it into our own hands. God gives it to us. God will take it from us. Whoever takes it into his or her own hands — in suicide — is acting in conflict with God’s command. They remove their life from God’s authority.

Is it then not true that God gave responsibility to man? Did man not receive room to make his own decisions? Man has responsibility. That is characteristic of human beings. An animal does not have responsibility. It also does not know itself to be responsible. It does not perceive a self. It is also not capable of deliberation. Man is. Therefore, I do not want to detract from the responsibility of man.

The key question is this: what does that responsibility entail? Also those who see man as autonomous want to know what the boundaries of responsibility are. For them, this definitely means that there are laws, even though the promoters of this idea insist that man himself may formulate the law, or that he is a law unto himself. There are boundaries. The difference between the promoters of the ideas of autonomy and us does not lie in the fact that there are boundaries.

The difference lies in this: how those boundaries are set; what the nature of the laws is. For many, the essence of the law is that man must have a good argument for his deeds. With regard to ending life, the decisive argument is this: does the person still experience life as good? If that is no longer the case, he may end his life. That person for whom life is only a burden, too heavy to endure, may cast that burden aside. It has been enough.

For our understanding, decision making is bound by norms other than those formulated above. The thought of life as a good life is the positive norm. Life as a burdensome experience is the negative norm. In the first case, man must say “yes” to life. In the second case, he may say “no” and end it.

Here man himself makes decisions about the meaning and the value of his life. After all, no one can say on an objective basis, to a person who experiences life as an evil, “Life is a good thing; you are judging the value and meaning of it in a wrong manner.” My problem with Kuitert’s reasoning is that personal experience and the valuation of life flowing from that experience is the determinant. Someone else may have his own opinion. Someone else may say that there is still so much that is good and beautiful. He can say: you still have a task in the lives of so and so. These considerations must enter into the argument, but they are not decisive or conclusive. The determinant is how I feel about it, how I experience life and how I value it — that is decisive. That is the deepest motive for action according to this line of thinking.

According to my thoughts, the responsibility of man toward God means that he is bound by God’s commandments. This involves much more than that he makes his decisions according to what he experiences as good and as bad.

No Subjective Interpretation of the Law←⤒🔗

From the overview of the biblical information, it has become clear that obedience to the command to protect and maintain life is not dependent on the question whether or not we perceive life as good. Believers in the Bible often experienced life as difficult. Look at the answer Jacob gave Pharaoh (Gen. 47:9 and also Ps. 40:10). The obedience to the command is given with the fact that we have received life. Our subjective valuation of that life is not a determinant for the question of whether we must continue in that life. Naturally, it is of great importance how we experience life; if we live it with joy or if we live it as a heavy burden. But the determining factor is that we, for the sake of God’s will, must respect and protect life.

Against the background of what I have just said, it will be clear to the reader that I, emphatically and with arguments, reject the idea of autonomy. Kuitert’s reasoning is a typical expression of human autonomy. Like I feel it, like I experience it, in that way it is normative. From my experience I derive the measuring rod for my actions.

Our point of departure must be the measuring rod made and specified by God. The norm does not depend on my experiences, but on what God says about life; and on what God commands with regard to life.

He does not give me freedom to do with life whatever I want or what I think might be beneficial. Life does not belong to me. My life, even I, as a living person, belong to God. That is decisive.

The thought that I, at an appropriate time, may or can depart from this life is a closed‑off route for us. I am purposely stating it in these terms because the Stoa (a philosophy of autonomy) propagates this thought: the door (to death) always stands open. A person can go through that door if he wants to. For us, this reasoning is impossible. However, we do not want to identify the autonomous ideas of the Stoa with the modern autonomous ideas without further discussion.

What then? We also understand that we, as people, must deal with the tension between life and death. That is to say, we have responsibility for what we do and what we do not to do. We want to carry out this responsibility from our involvement in and from our determination by the law of God.

The New Situation←⤒🔗

An active, deliberate ending of our lives is a closed‑off route for us. Are there no problems then? Those are certainly there. I especially want to point out the fact that we are now able to sustain life for much longer, something that was not possible fifty years ago. The means to accomplish this were not there then. This life extension sometimes shifts to a delaying of death.

Here we certainly come to face a boundary. I understand that it is not easy to precisely mark that boundary. Still, I want to try.

I am assuming that our actions are never intended to actively putting to death. To desire that is against God’s law for us.

I want to discuss the question regarding how far we must go in attending to a patient who is dying. There is no moment when one may say: we will actively let him leave this life; we will put him to death. However, can there come a time when we say: we are withholding certain procedures from him? We will no longer administer certain medication?

In so far as it concerns the provision of food and drink, we feel ourselves called to not withhold this from anyone. In fact, withholding food and drink means letting our fellowman dehydrate and starve to death — however short or long such a process may last. I do believe that, in the dying process, a time may come when all therapeutic means must be stopped. That is to say one should no longer administer the means, of which the doctor is not convinced that it will have the desired outcome. There is no longer a reasonable expectation of the effect achieved. In this phase, one can still support the dying person with pain relieving medication. There is nothing more to do. Death is advancing.

Whoever does not want to recognize the approach of death is blinded by whatever “ism.” It can be medical fanaticism; it can be vitalism; it can also be professionalism.

Believers find their comfort in the fact that whether they live or die, they belong to the Lord.