10th Sunday after Trinity 24th August 2014
Evensong with hymns in The Parish Church of St. James, Louth
In the news this week have been reports of comments made by Richard Dawkins about the moral and ethical dilemma of people who, during pregnancy, discover that they are carrying a baby with a serious disability – in the case reported, Down’s Syndrome. There was a degree of negative reaction to the conclusion that he drew – that the correct ethical decision, that promotes the most happiness in life and the least suffering is to ‘abort the pregnancy and try again’. I want to reflect on this – not because it highlights the stark nature of decisions that are made on the basis of rude mechanical calculations about life, but because it highlights for us why we are called not just to ‘be nice’ as Christians and promote happiness, but to promote the most loving reaction to events that involve us.
So let us be clear – as Christians we are called to see that creation exists to be a place where love is played out. This does mean that there is the possibility of love being absent – and human nature being what it is love often is absent. But without this possibility, there would be no value in love. We believe that the overwhelming reason for seeking God is to let the love that is God re-echo in our hearts and infuse our lives with its presence. This is a clear theme in John’s gospel, with perhaps its key mission statement being that ‘God is love, and those who live in love live in God and God lives in them’.
But I think that we are often distracted by the idea that creating happiness and minimising suffering are indeed the same as loving. And this is a serious mistake. For if, like the pure materialist we seek to measure happiness and suffering and make the best decision we can – then we will come out with a simple equation that we can use to approach even the most complicated of situations. But so often, such a process brings us to a decision that is unpalatable; just as the logical conclusion of the secular worldview to which Richard Dawkins subscribes brings him to the only answer – that the best thing to do is to abort the life of an unborn child if it will be the subject of suffering in its natural life.
So, as Christians, we are called to replace happiness and lack of suffering with love in this moral equation. And this can bring us to a different point. In judging the value of that life we see it not as a machine that contributes to the practical perfection of the human race, but we see value in the capacity that a life has to give and receive. We can acknowledge that it there is an infinite value to the love that is lavished not only on the unborn child, but on the child that does not have the same benefits in life as others. So as Christians, we should see value in the life of someone who may remain a child for their natural life, and someone who may need constant care; but who in return brings joy and gives love.
None of this requires that we believe per se in ‘God’, and certainly it doesn’t require us to sign up to all the points of doctrine and dogma by which the Church tries to understand the depths of the God who we believe is love; but it does require that we see love as the highest value to which we may aspire. Love trumps happiness, and accepting people as they are trumps seeing people as machines that should function in particular ways.
So we may come to the same conclusion as Richard Dawkins, that (though regrettable) it may be the most loving thing to terminate a pregnancy. But we may also be motivated by love to see a different possibility – a possibility of love given and received. And in pursuing that love, we are pursuing the very thing that is God.