The Anglican Church of Canada has released prayers, Scripture readings and pastoral guidance for clergy accompanying Christians who choose Medical Assistance in Dying, drawing sharp criticism from Christian apologist Ken Ham and other opponents of euthanasia.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Anglican Church of Canada has published a new set of pastoral liturgies intended for use when clergy minister to people who have chosen to die through Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program, prompting a heated debate over whether providing religious rites at an assisted death amounts to pastoral care or theological approval of euthanasia.
The church’s Pastoral Liturgies at the Time of Death in Contexts of Medically Assisted Dying includes prayers, confessions, Scripture readings and instructions concerning communion before and after a physician administers the medication that ends a patient’s life.
The document states that it does not seek to “enter into the ethical arguments … nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD.”
Instead, the material is presented as pastoral guidance for clergy serving people who have already decided to pursue a medically assisted death.
That approach has drawn forceful objections from Christians who argue that a church cannot remain neutral while actively providing religious rites surrounding euthanasia.
A Not the Bee report criticized the resource as evidence that the church is, “at best, wishy-washy on the issue of euthanasia, making clear that they aren’t judging the murderous/suicidal medical procedure one way or the other.”
Among the most vocal critics is Ken Ham, the Australian-born Christian apologist who founded Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter and has written dozens of books defending a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Ham argued that the compassionate language surrounding the liturgy obscures what he believes is occurring morally and theologically.
The project, he said, “certainly appears compassionate, but only because they use euphemisms to obscure what is really happening: A physician is murdering a patient. Just because the patient has requested to be murdered doesn’t make murder okay! In a fallen world, we will all suffer, but we do not hold the authority of life and death over our own bodies. We are not autonomous. God is our Creator, and He holds our lives in His hands and has sovereignly written in our book the number of our days.
“We look to Him, not our own fallible human wisdom, for what is right and good. Whether they want to admit it or not, a euthanasia liturgy is the church blessing the choice of self-murder. It is the church condoning evil.”
Ham also publicly criticized the church’s approach, arguing that Christian clergy should counsel suffering people toward palliative care rather than participate in a medically assisted death.
The Anglican guidance describes some of the circumstances that may lead patients to seek MAiD, emphasizing prolonged illness, suffering and a desire not to die alone.
“People who choose MAiD freely and without coercion may indeed be ready to go. They have been living with and suffering through complex health challenges and they want the pain to stop. They want to be able to sleep. They desperately do not want their families and loved ones to watch and wait, wondering how much longer? They have exhausted all medical options, and they know, everyone knows, that there is no cure. Some wish, most of all, not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well. Some, who are Christian, also desire not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side,” the document’s promoters state.
Ham said that language appears inconsistent with the church’s assertion that the resource is not taking a position on MAiD.
“That reads an awful lot like a stamp of approval on MAiD from the writers of this liturgical guide! The guide then gives prayers, confessions, and Scripture readings, along with instructions for communion, to be administered before and after the physician gives the lethal injection and the person’s life ends,” he said.
Ham argued that using biblical language in such a setting does not resolve what he views as the underlying conflict with Christian teaching about the sanctity of life.
“This guidance is an example of someone using the Bible and very Christian-sounding language without actually believing the Bible or having their worldview shaped by Scripture. They have an ‘appearance of godliness’ in their Christianized language, but in reality, they are claiming that it is a person’s choice whether or not to end their own life and pastors have a duty to be there when that person dies to walk them through it—not to persuade them otherwise or show them from God’s Word that murder is wrong but to participate in their death…” Ham said.
Canada established its Medical Assistance in Dying system several years ago, creating a legal framework under which qualifying patients can receive medical assistance to end their lives.
Critics of the expanding program contend that medically assisted death is now being discussed or offered in circumstances involving chronic pain, injuries and other conditions that they believe should instead be addressed through treatment and palliative care.
Supporters generally frame MAiD as an option for eligible patients facing serious suffering who knowingly and voluntarily choose the procedure.
The Anglican resource approaches the issue from the position that some Christians will choose MAiD regardless of the church’s broader theological debates and that those individuals may still seek clergy, prayer, Scripture, communion and other pastoral support at the end of their lives.
Ham rejects that distinction.
“Those who are suffering need palliative care from the medical profession—not a lethal injection—and compassion, kindness, and love from the church (and the gospel if they don’t know Christ!). What they don’t need is approval of a sinful choice that takes control into our own hands instead of trusting in the Creator who numbers our days,” he said.
Not the Bee was even more severe in its assessment of the liturgies, arguing that religious language cannot make participation in medically assisted death consistent with historic Christian teaching.
“Like the devil’s best tricks, it’s all very religious and thoughtful sounding, but in reality it appears to be nothing more than a capitulation to the anti-Christ death cult. And, as all hellish ideas that are Satan-inspired, it won’t stay in just one place for long,” the outlet warned.
Additional reaction to the controversy has focused on the broader question of whether clergy can accompany a person through an assisted death without being understood as endorsing the decision.
The Anglican Church of Canada’s position, as expressed in the liturgical resource, is that the document itself is not intended to settle the moral argument for or against MAiD.
Its critics contend that the act of supplying prayers, Scripture and communion specifically for the period surrounding a medically assisted death effectively answers that question through practice, regardless of the disclaimer.
That disagreement has transformed what might otherwise have been an internal pastoral resource into a wider dispute over euthanasia, biblical authority and the role Christian clergy should play when a congregant chooses a medically assisted death.
Original article
Comments