Many of the topics discussed thus far have been more abstract in nature. While evidence has been presented; the majority of my writing has centered on argumentation concerning ideals, beliefs, and historical occurrences. All that has been couched inside the goal of presenting Christianity as a relevant historical and culturally reality that has been mostly positive. The hope is that this section will be slightly different in its approach. Namely, the goal will be to present more of a concrete argument supplied by evidence of Christian influence on the advancement of medicine and mercy. Certainly, there will be Christian values deeply baked into the medical field’s growth throughout the centuries. However, at least in the first section (medical advancement), the hope is to focus on concrete Christian additions to the field. Later sections will look more at the effect of Christian impact on the concept of mercy inside the medical field, and lastly, a look into how Christian values impact how children are treated in the Christian tradition and the implications of that treatment. Both how children were treated during the Roman Empire, and then how those values speak in a modern context.
The Greco-Roman world, the historical context under which Christianity originated, was far different in both medical knowledge and ethical treatment of individuals. The doctor during these ancient times could often be more closely compared to a sorcerer. When considering the tenets of paganism, one could imagine what level of care a pagan sorcerer would deliver to patients in need. Looking back at early approaches to medicine, outside of the Hippocratic group of physicians, the whole venture of medicine leaves much to be desired. When Christianity finally established foothold as a permanent cultural fixture under Constantine in the 4th century, Christianity began to make positive cultural impacts within medicine. It is not hard to see why statements like the one Jesus made in Mathew 25:40 were so impactful, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me”. Jesus offered a moral paradigm that was contrary to what the world practiced; He presents an approach that put emphasis on even the lowly. One can scarcely consider Christianity’s impact without considering the golden rule. In the Sermon on the Mount He says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Treating other people the way you would like to be treated; such a simple concept, but one that undoubtedly ensures the fair treatment of others in need. It is not difficult to see how moral pictures like the two above presented by Jesus serve as a foundational shoring for the future medical advancement that Christianity would bring. Before an exploration into the moral framework Christianity provided medicine, a historical survey of Christianity’s role in medical advancement seems important.
The History of Christian Involvement in Medicine
In his book, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity, Gary Ferngren relates the state of medicine during the formative years of Christianity. Ferngren writes and describes the approach of Greco-Roman medicine to be diverse in its beliefs and practices. There were certainly pagan expressions and wild ruminations surrounding the source and treatment of diseases, but also a look to natural or medical solutions for illness – as juxtaposed to strange superstitious wanderings. Ferngren describes the relationship of different views by saying they all existed side by side, “medical, religious, folk, and magical healing traditions”.176 It is not uncommon to ascribe intellectual defectiveness to Christians from all periods of history. Especially considering the prevalence of miracles and supernatural healings in the New Testament, it would not be a terrible stretch for antagonists of Christianity to disregard Christian influence on medicine as negligent. I say that for this reason; The New Testament is filled with examples of miraculous healings. From Jesus’ treatment and healing of lepers to Paul, Peter, and John’s healings in Acts – examples abound of the supernatural at work. It would be par the course for skeptics working from a naturalistic worldview to write off any Christian influence in the medical realm. For how could Christians believe or practice any level of practical medicine when they clearly believe in ridiculous supernatural healings? However, the story of Christianity and medicine in a historical context tells a vastly different story. One of robust Christian impact on the way medicine was used and viewed by an ever-growing Christian influence.
Ferngren offers help in describing the thought process that many of a Jewish or Christian tradition would have possessed. He lays out an argument that flies contrary to the superstitious musings with which skeptics would view Christian approaches to medicine. Ferngren says, “disease and impairment were one of the aspects of material (as distinct from moral) evil that resulted from the Fall of the human race into sin.”177 Ferngren is explaining that sickness was not seen as a moral issue. That is, sickness was not a retribution for committing evil acts. Rather, sickness was present because humanity as a whole had fallen into sin after the fall in Genesis. Not a superstitious approach, at least not the one some would accuse early Christianity of. Ferngren argues that medicine was viewed as a gift from God in combating disease and death. He quotes from the Book of Sirach, an Apocryphal work from the inter-testamental period before the New Testament, “Honor the physician with the honor due to him, before you need him….He [Yahweh] gave skill to men that He might be glorified in his marvelous works” (Sirach 38). Ferngren is making a case that Christianity was not operating only under an umbrella of focus upon supernatural healings. Rather, roughly 200 years prior to Jesus’ ministry on earth, Jewish sources were defining the doctor and natural knowledge as relevant and important.
Basil of Caesarea is credited with creating one of the first hospitals. Gregory of Nazianzus presented a speech at the funeral of Basil of Caesarea, “Go a little way outside the city to see a new city, the treasury of piety, a common treasure room of those who have possessions where superfluous wealth . . . is stored. . . . In this institution diseases are studied, misfortune made blessed, and sympathy put to the test”.178 This institution being mentioned by Gregory of Nazianzus, was given the name Basileias in honor of Basil. Basil created a style of monastery that differed from many of the iterations of that time. Many monasteries focused on seclusion and severe and self-deprived lifestyles. Basil approached monastic life from a radically different perspective. One of care for both the soul and the physical bodies of those who were in need. In an especially telling move, Basil even accepted lepers into his hospital. At that time, it was an incurable disease, and treatment of leprosy stood as a radically counter-cultural move compared against practices of the time. Basil’s philanthropy became so well-known that he was forced to respond to a governor by the name of Elias, “Now should like those who are besieging your impartial ears to be asked what harm the government suffers from me?…. But to whom do we do any harm by building a place of entertainment for strangers, both for those who are on a journey and for those who require medical treatment on account of sickness, and so establishing a means of giving these men the comfort they want, physicians, doctors, means of conveyance, and escort?”.179
Despite Basil’s robust Christian ministry expressed through medicine and care, there was some skepticism among Christians about the validity of Greek medicine. He argued that medicine was a gift from God, going so far as to quote Jeremiah 8:22, ”Is there no balm in Gilead? Or is there no physician there? Why then hath not the health of the daughter of my people gone up?”.Basil makes a statement, and then precedes to quote from the Book of Jeremiah, specifically Jeremiah 8:22. He makes an argument that if Scripture from the Old Testament accepts the use of physicians, then Christians in the New Testament period should as well. Basil says, “God sometimes cures us . . . without visible means when he judges this mode of treatment beneficial to our souls; and again He wills that we use material remedies for our ills . . . to provide an example for the proper care of the soul”.180 While on his mission of mercy, Basil initiated the foundation for the modern hospital movement. He also was important in ensuring the view that medical science was a tool given by God to help the lowly and sick. Basil should be remembered as formative in both the theological and social realm of early Christianity, especially for the medical infrastructure and methodologies he implemented.
Monastic Life, Medical Care and the Medieval Period
Early efforts at Christian charity were so successful that the Emperor Julian attempted to model pagan philanthropy after Christianity: “For it is disgraceful when no Jew is a beggar and the impious Galileans [the name given by Julian to Christians] support our poor in addition to their own; everyone is able to see that our coreligionists are in want of aid from us….I claim, even though it may seem paradoxical, that it is a holy deed to share our clothes and food with the wicked: we give, not to their moral character but to their human character”.181 Not only does he recognize the success of Christians in acts of mercy, he even attempts to model part of his plan after obvious themes from the Sermon on the Mount. The next link between Christianity and medicine explores the charity and care Julian spoke of. Specifically, the relationship between monastic life and medical care. Monastic life became popular early in the history of Christianity. Examples of severe and ascetic lifestyles are readily available. Simeon Stylites the Elder is a prime example of the severe lifestyle many of these monks lived. He literally lived on top of a pillar for over thirty years, with a space of no more then 1-2 square meters. The bizarre nature of Simeon Stylites and other ascetically focused monks would not seem to convey a focus on medical advancement. One would be correct in that assumption, but monastic life was not so monolithic as to express itself only with methods like those used by Simeon.
Often the focus of monastic life were extreme forms of seclusion or attempts at denial of self. However, just as common within monastic life was for that seclusion to bring about all kinds of good fruit. An area in which monastic life brought about advancement centered on medical topics. Andrew Crislip in his book, From Monastery to Hospital: Christian Monasticism and the Transformation of Health Care in Late Antiquity, argues for the medical care in Christian monasteries as an important prototype for more advanced hospitals. As discussed in the earlier section on education, monasteries were important cultural centers of thought throughout the Middle Ages. In an ever-changing landscape of war, violence, disease and political intrigue – the cohesion of Christianity as a cultural glue allowed for monasteries to flourish in a variety of ways. Such as education, medicine, even existing as a means of transmitting thought – a library, so to speak.
Crislip argues that much of the medical care administered centered on palliative and hygienic care. These monasteries were simple and ancient in their administration of medical science, but these monastic “hospitals” had non-religious counterparts who followed monastic models and these were, “the best types available outside the monastery”.182 In the first chapter of the book Crislip defines the common treatment methods of the monastic system: “health care delivery, medical personnel, methods of treatment, and the specific components of medical healing”.183 Those treatments were wide in their practice; ranging from simple dietary recommendations to surgery. Later in his book, Crislip begins to outline and define the origination of the hospital. We have already discussed the Basileias in Cappadocia, the invention of Basil. The Basileias was unique in its services offered; it contained a poorhouse, hospice, orphanage, leprosarium, and a home for the aged to live in. These were radically different forms of care, at least when packaged into one location, then anything else the Greco-Roman world was offering at the time. All the other pertinent attempts at medical care never reached the breadth or height of the Cappadocian Basileias. Some of the purported parties potentially responsible for the hospital movement: temples of Asclepius, private practices by doctors, even slave and government run military infirmaries – all fall short of Christian monastic examples. While the care may have been adequate, perhaps even excellent, in the list above, that care never reached the widespread effectiveness of the early hospital methods established by Christianity in the latter part of the fourth century and later in monastic life.
Crislip uses quite a large amount of modern medical language like “outpatient”, “inpatient”, and “nursing”. This language, while probably not invented or used during this ancient period, was nonetheless in practice to varying degrees. This compartmentalized care is obviously apparent in our modern medical system. Crislip argues that the whole modern hospital system borrowed its methods of care from these early Christian monasteries – specifically the different parts of care that are obvious facets of modern medicine, like “inpatient” and “outpatient”. Perhaps the most important contribution of monastic medicine/hospitals was a special designation given to those who were ill. The Greco-Roman world often shielded the sick from society, at least poorly treated those who were sick. Within the monasteries, the approach was different, with the sick existing inside something Crislip calls the “Sick Role”.184 Existing inside this role allowed normal responsibilities to be placed on hold. This created a sort of protected class and protected the sick from superstitious musings that their sickness was somehow connected to supernatural or demonic activity. This allowed for the sick to be, well, sick. A sort of protected class was formed with the recognition that being sick really just meant that one was unfortunately, sick. The recognition of this protected class inside the ”sick role” created a greater social recognition of the care needed for the sick. Some monasteries did not accept the universality of care that Basil did, extending care mostly to other monastic participants. Nevertheless, the methods and practices of monastic medical care laid the foundation for future medical practice. Christianity was the social glue that often brought a stabilizing presence that allowed for cultural progress. That is true, but Christianity also provided the model for medical care through the existence and practice of medical care in the Monastery.
St. Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the Benedictine order, would heavily influence the medieval monastic approach to medical care. St. Benedict called for an extremely high quality of care for those who were ill. His approach became so successful that a church council in 742 AD declared that all monasteries should pattern their hospitals and medical care after the Benedictine order.185 Benedict’s standards required the establishment of infirmaries in all monasteries, requiring for the care of the sick and the ill to be positioned, “above and before every other duty”.186 Other renowned monastic hospitals constructed and run during this time period included Merida, Spain (580), St. John’s Hospital at Ephesus (610), Pantokrator in Constantinople (7th century), Hôtel Dieu at Paris (651), Montpellier (738), St. Albans in England (794), St. Maria della Scala, Siena (898), and St. Bernard’s Hospital in the Swiss Alps (962).187 Monastic life and Christianity were inextricably linked to the formation and health of the hospital movement. That is an undoubted reality even the most staunchly anti-Christian cannot deny.
Charlemagne the Emperor, put a decree into effect that there would be a hospital attached to the formation of any cathedral within his territory.188 De-urbanization and depopulation were especially prevalent during the medieval ages. The raids by Vikings, combined with the plagues of the time period led to the realities of depopulation. This made the monastery or Christian Church the center point of cultural communication, advancement and transmission of knowledge. The often rural, outside the large population center nature of monasteries led to a stability point for the tumultuous medieval period. It was then no surprise that Charlemagne decreed that a hospital be attached to a cathedral and not a tavern or other social fixture of the time. Christianity had provided the only locus of security throughout the trying medieval period – why try to change a winning formula? Many sick and ill were treated humanely and ethically in ways they certainly would not have been if it were not for the existence and care offered by the monastic system.
As time progressed, the impetus behind the hospital movement began to move from not only a Church and monastery driven movement but civil authorities as well, especially in the late Middle Ages (Roughly 10th century forward). Monastic medical centers would continue their growth, but especially in urban areas, civil authorities began to expand alongside the Christian community in medical and hospital advancement. Specialized medical centers, like those which focused on care for lepers arrived on the scene at a more regular pace. Monasteries during this period began to expand their care for those outside monastic life to the community at large. Renowned hospitals such as St. Bartholomew’s (1137), St. Mary’s (1179) and St. Thomas (1215) in London, the Holy Cross in Winchester (1132) and St. John’s in Canterbury (1118) began their service. In the 12th century, a new monastic order was brought into effect by Pope Innocent III. With this new monastic order came a new establishment of hospitals in many major cities. These new institutions became known as the Hospital of the Holy Ghost, with hospitals numbering in the hundreds.189 As the 13th century began to appear on the horizon, the establishment of medieval hospitals moved even more from the church to the influence of civil authorities. Monks and nuns would often continue in support roles, but the monastery as the chief foundation of medieval medicine was no longer a reality.
These new hospitals seemed to mostly be inclusive in what types of patients they took in. Bonvesin da la Riva wrote in his work Concerning the Great Works of the City of Milan, “served all the poor of the community except the lepers, who were treated elsewhere”. As successful as these attempts may have been in developing medicine and hospitals, the Black Death was quickly approaching and medical care would take regressive steps during the 14th century.190 According to the French physician Guy de Chauliac (c. 1300–1368), during that period “caritas erat mortua, spes prostrata” (the charity was dead, the hope laid off).191 The Black plague which originated in 1348 left not just the hospital systems in disarray, it left the whole of Eurasia in mass distress. Estimates range that roughly 30-50% of the European population perished during the mid-14th century. Petrarch, a poet, is remembered for his vivid description of the Black Death. He wrote to his brother from a monastery, with only a dog and himself still alive as over 30 others had already passed:
Alas! My beloved brother, what shall I say? How shall I begin? Whither shall I turn? On all sides is sorrow; everywhere is fear. I would, my brother, that I had never been born, or, at least, had died before these times. How will posterity believe that there has been a time when without the lightnings of heaven or the fires of earth, without wars or other visible slaughter, not this or that part of the earth, but well-nigh the whole globe has remained without inhabitants. When has any such thing been even heard or seen; in what annals has it ever been read that houses were left vacant, cities deserted, the country neglected, the fields too small for the dead and a fearful and universal solitude over the whole earth?…Oh happy people of the future, who have not known these miseries and perchance will class our testimony with the fables. We have, indeed, deserved these [punishments] and even greater; but our forefathers also have deserved them, and may our posterity not also merit the same…192
The bleakness of the situation is captured well by Petrarch. This serves as an important point in which we can move to the modern era.
Christian Medical Impact in the Modern Era
Leaving the medieval period behind, a peek into the modern era will be helpful for Westerners seeing the direct and more recent affect Christianity has had on medical care. For example, many of the famous modern hospitals present today in America owe their heritage to particularly Christian founders, or at least obvious Christian values. Three of the oldest hospitals in the United States exist under this umbrella of Christian heritage. Hospitals as we know them did not exist in the American context, those who were wealthy enough would have a doctor visit them for house calls. Watch any old western, John Wayne Movie, or an episode of Gunsmoke to see Doc Adams administer this sort of travelling medical care.
Harvard University’s Massachusetts General Hospital was birthed into existence by the work of John Bartlett (1784-1849). He was a pastor of the 2nd Congregational Church of Marblehead. His ministry did not end as the pastor of a local church, though. He was active as the chaplain of the Alms House inside the city of Boston. He saw the need for medical care amongst the impoverished and needy, leading him to: “seeing the distress of the sick and insane of Boston,” caused him to call a prominent group of Bostonians to think on, “the establishment of a hospital for the insane”.The meeting yielded results as a committee was formed which would, “consider and report on the expediency of establishing a General Hospital for the reception of the sick, lunatics & pregnant women, who may need such an Asylum”. Ultimately, the committee formed to serve the aforementioned purposes led to the creation of the Massachusetts General Hospital, one of the premier medical centers within the United States of America.193
In his book, The Care of Strangers: The Rise of America’s Hospital System, Charles Rosenberg describes just how relevant the creation of hospitals was within the American context. For example, around the year 1800, America contained a population of roughly 5-6 million. Most American citizens, especially those in a rural context, would have only heard of hospitals. Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania Hospital came into existence in 1751. New York Hospital followed soon after in 1771. However, by the middle of the 19th century, hospitals were being founded in much larger quantities – unsurprisingly, many of them were Christian in their nature and founding.194 The 1751 founding of the Pennsylvania Hospital was birthed out of a collaboration between one of America’s founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin and physician Thomas Bond. He was originally educated in America but later travelled to Europe to finish his education. He was instrumental in the founding of the Pennsylvania Hospital – the first hospital in America. Benjamin Franklin gives Bond his due as the one who conceptualized the hospital not as a charity poorhouse. Instead, the impetus was to create a place where the treatment of the sick and injured could take place. This was in contrast to the poorhouse model which often focused more on charity, helping the needy and poor with food and shelter. After the founding in 1751, in 1766 Bond began offering medical school education through Penn’s new medical school program.195 Franklin relates the concept being the idea of Bond in his autobiography: “In 1751, Dr. Thomas Bond, a particular friend of mine, conceived the idea of establishing a hospital in Philadelphia (a very beneficent design, which has been ascribed to me, but was originally his) for the reception and cure of poor sick persons, whether inhabitants of the province or strangers. He was zealous and active in endeavoring to procure subscriptions for it, but the proposal being a novelty in America, and at first not well understood, he met but with small success”.196
Bond was a Quaker, a denomination or sect of Christianity which was especially popular in the earlier periods of American history. This specific iteration of Christian faith was highly prominent in the region of Pennsylvania. It should then come as no surprise that Bond found himself greatly influenced by his Quakerism. The Christian influence was evident when the inscription, “Take care of him and I will repay thee” was affixed to the hospital. Further, in overtly Christian imagery an image of the Good Samaritan was selected as the seal of the hospital.197 A deeper insight can be given by quoting the full inscription. It can be found at the southeast corner of the east wing of the Pine Building: “In the Year of Christ, 1755, George the second happily reigning; (For he sought the Happiness of his People) Philadelphia flourishing, (For its Inhabitants were publick-spirited), This Building, By the Bounty of the Government, And of many private Persons, Was piously founded, For the Relief of the Sick and Miserable. May the God of Mercies. Bless the Undertaking!”.198 Benjamin Franklin’s faith has been discussed at earlier points, but it bears repeating that his faith obviously did not fall inside the boundaries of orthodox Christian faith. Thomas Bond’s faith is not something which is readily available in historical record, either. It is obvious, however, that from Franklin’s autobiography, the inscription, and events surrounding the founding of the Pennsylvania Hospital displayed Christian influence. In the inscription, Franklin directly requested the mercies of God in this new undertaking. Christian principles not only drove the creation of this hospital, but also provided the ethical underpinnings contained within Christianity to establish the first hospital in what would have been colonial territory at the time.
It would be a failure on my part to not mention and outline the impact Christianity has and does have on modern acts of philanthropy and humanitarian aid. The belief that faith and medicine could be interconnected in a positive and helpful manner would be harshly eschewed by some; heartily and enthusiastically accepted by others. Anecdotal opinion is irrelevant – what does the evidence for positive Christian influence on medical mercy actually communicate to interested parties? For much of the modern era, Christian ministries have given medical, nursing, and dental care throughout the world. This has brought much needed care but has also established infrastructure that can continue in a long term environment. Medical missions are a part of many Christian denominations. Oftentimes these medical missions are somehow linked to philanthropies or a government organizations of some sort. These Christian influenced acts of medical mercy and humanitarian aid give testimony to the impact of Christianity.199
Studies and data will reveal just how relevant the Christian faith is within the context of humanitarian and medical aid. An NGO is a non-governmental organization that operates to provide or assist in giving humanitarian aid. A study entitled Evangelicals and International Aid revealed, “Faith-based NGOs constitute nearly 60 percent of all U.S.-based foreign aid organizations, and the majority of faith-based NGOs are Christian”.200 Further, evangelical charities make up the largest segment of the private international aid organization in the United States of America.201 Protestant missions work is considered the progenitor and archetype for the rest of the humanitarian sector which exploded with the ending of World War II.202 Pew research data details telling statistics about the generosity and care often shown by Christians. Of those who regularly attended church, it was found they were 18% more likely to volunteer their time. The data does not end there, research done at the University of Indiana revealed that Christians were far more likely to be charitable compared against non-religious counterparts. A study conducted by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at the University of Indiana showed: “People who are religiously affiliated are more likely to make a charitable donation of any kind…Sixty-two percent of religious households give to charity of any kind, compared with 46 percent of households with no religious affiliation”. Also, “People who attend religious services on a monthly basis are 11 times more likely to give to religious congregations, and they give an average of $1,737 more to religion per year than people who attend less than once a month”.203 There is an undeniable connection between generosity and the Christian faith -especially within the context of providing medical care to those in need.
At this point, some readers may be expecting explicit discoveries or research by individual Christian’s which brought about medical advancement. That could certainly be done; however, it has been adequately demonstrated in our historical survey of medicine and hospitals that Christianity has been highly impactful. That “big-picture” impact seems to be a stronger argument for the relevance of Christianity then how certain individuals’ faith could have served in aiding their discoveries. I believe that whether an individual believer or even an atheist made a discovery/advancement is not the important point to grasp. Rather, these “discoveries’ of medical advancement would have probably been made regardless of the discoverer’s individual faith. Why? Christianity provided the infrastructure, social stability, education and resources to make those discoveries happen. Some may find arguments of individual Christian excellence in medical advancement compelling. Consider the work of scientist Francis Collins in studying the human genome. He details in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, his work on the monumentally important task of discovering the human genome. Others would find the work of a Christian like Collins as compelling argumentation for the relevance of Christianity. I do not necessarily disagree. There is interesting research and data which point to Christian’s often being more successful and astute then their non-religious counterparts. However, the “big-picture” survey we have seen in this section seems in my opinion to be of more importance than individual discoveries by believers. The foundation would have never been present without Christianity’s stabilizing qualities.
All of the events given a historical survey display just how affective Christianity has been in building an infrastructure of mercy and medical aid. From the house of mercy brought into existence by Basil of Caesarea, to the modern hospitals brought into existence by Christian philanthropy in the United States. Further, not only did Christianity provide literal brick and mortar locations for medicine and hospitals to flourish, but it also provided the requisite attitudes of mercy and empathy. That is where we will leave this section to move to the next. Remembering the historical and practical impact of Christian mercy in the last section, and moving forward to analyze the empathy and mercy that Christianity provides for effective medical work to have begun.
The Fundamentals of Mercy: The Christian Influence
The empathy, care, and love displayed in The Good Samaritan story stands as perhaps the shining example of Christian medical mercy. The story provides a spiritual undergirding and framework which flips accepted cultural norms upside down. This not the only passage which obviously informs Christian concepts of mercy. Other passages will be observed which further enlighten readers to Christianity’s ideals of mercy. As will be evident, Christianity offers a spirit and set of ethical ideals on which to stand and present to the world. These ethical undergirding’s inform Christians, and thus the world, how to treat those in need of medical care. As Jesus so often does, especially as seen in other places of His ministry (Think Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 5:38-42, Turning of the cheek); He presents an alternative approach from accepted Jewish attitudes and treatment of a hated group – The Samaritans. The spiritual and ethnic make-up of Samaritans was revolting to any Jew worth their salt. Jesus takes the least desirable individual of Jewish culture, the Samaritan, and displays what mercy and care should look like:
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:29-37).
One very important takeaway from this parable. The initial question that leads to Jesus telling this story is the question asked by a law expert in verse 29: “who is my neighbor”. Jesus then responds with the story shown in the passage above. What he does is truly remarkable, taking the most undesirable person in Jewish culture, and assigning him the same status of neighbor that Jews would have only ascribed to those within the confines of Judaism. Here is shown the great ideal of care that grew out of the Christian tradition of proto-hospitals and medical care – medical care that deems all humans worthy of being defined as a neighbor. The Good Samaritan teaches that all people are neighbors and created in the Image of God. When all humans are found together within the bond of love and care, the relevance for medical care is clear: All people, despite ethnic or cultural background, are found to be worthy in the eyes of Jesus. When Jesus presents the parable of the Good Samaritan, it informs the need and quality of care in the field of medicine. We cited in the last section the appearance of the Good Samaritan in the Hospital formed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Bond. The impact of a story told by Jesus is unequivocally linked to medical care, and ultimately the cultural relevance of Christianity.
In the first part of Matthew chapter five, Jesus presents a list of people who are characterized as being blessed. As would be common in most cultures, the successful, wealthy, and those who have “it together” are recognized as the standard to be sought for. In a counter-cultural move, Jesus says those who are poor, those who mourn, the meek, and the merciful, along with others are defined as those who will receive the kingdom of God. This obviously flies in the face of accepted cultural norms. Another theme running strong throughout the Sermon on the Mount is the radical differentiation Jesus presents on how to treat other people: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). Loving your enemies was an idea foreign to most, but especially in a culturally exclusive setting like Judaism. The ideal of treating other people well even when not deserving fair treatment is presented most clearly in Matthew chapter seven. Jesus says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This is generally recognized as the golden rule. The central message of the rule centers on treating others the way one would like to be treated. With the radical message of the Sermon on the Mount recognizing the lowly, calling for love of even one’s enemies, and the call of the golden rule to treat others fairly – an obvious conclusion is reached. That conclusion: These passages from the Sermon on the Mount provide the necessary framework for medical mercy. Ultimately, for the goal of treating people in a commensurate manner as exemplified by Jesus.
It would be a terrible misstep to forget how Jesus specifically handled those who were sick. When considering the impact and influence of Christianity, the miracle and healing ministry reveals an attitude of empathy and care that must not be quickly passed over. Three examples of how Jesus handled the issue of sickness stand out: 1) Lazarus’ Resurrection, 2) His interaction with lepers, 3) The woman with the issue of blood (Likely Menorrhagia). Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, who along with his two sisters Mary and Martha, were followers of His. In this story, you see one of the strongest pictures of mercy, empathy, and raw emotion presented in perhaps the whole of the Bible. Before the happenings of John 11-12, which center on the resurrection of Lazarus and then the anointing of Jesus’ feet in chapter 12, there had been previous contact between Jesus and this family in Luke 10:38-42. The closeness of this family with Jesus is pictured by Him being welcomed into their house and served a meal: “As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said.” (Luke 10:38-39). If Jesus was being welcomed in this family’s house, one can imagine there was a level of familiarity and intimacy between them. It is in John 11 that a clear picture of care and empathy is so vividly illustrated.
Lazarus and his sisters lived in Bethany, a small town not far from the city of Jerusalem. Jesus was sent a message that Lazarus was sick. John relates the closeness of their relationship by saying, “Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus” (John 11:5). Jesus does not begin his trek to see the family for several days, and there is also concern about how He will be treated by the Jews as there was just an attempt to stone him. Jesus then clarifies that Lazarus had not fallen into some sort of sleep or coma, but had actually died. Upon His arrival, John relates to readers that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Extricate yourself from a cursory reading of Scripture and imagine the pain of this situation. It seems that many of the followers were often similar in age to Jesus. Also, considering that the siblings seemed to live together in a communal house suggests that the three did not possess spouses or children of their own. That suggests a young age for the three. Death among the elderly is painful, but there comes almost an expectation of death with the elderly. Age brings about the degradation of the body. All know that the longer one spends on earth, the inevitability of death becomes more and more expected. However, in this case, the evidence seems to suggest that Lazarus was a young man. So, when Martha goes to meet Jesus and says, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died.” (John 11:21); it likely comes with the additional heartbreak of seeing her brother pass far too early.
Jesus then calls for Mary, the other sister of Lazarus. She comes to Him, “As soon as Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and told him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died!”. When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who had come with her crying, he was deeply movedin his spirit and troubled.” (John 11:32-33). If the picture of empathy and concern needed anymore painting, it is done in the shortest verse of the Bible. After seeing the heartbreak of the two sisters, and the other likely reality of Lazarus dying, the Scriptures do not give us a complex discourse on how to deal with grief. Very simply, John tells us that, “Jesus Wept” (John 11:35). However, there was a reason for all this happening, His ultimate goal was revealed earlier, “So Jesus then told them plainly, “Lazarus has died. I’m glad for you that I wasn’t there so that you may believe. But let’s go to him” (John 11:14-15). It is important to not confuse the ultimate reason for Jesus allowing this story to unfold as it did. His ultimate glorification and causing others to come to belief in him was likely the most vital part of Lazarus’ interaction. However, the empathy directed at Lazarus and his sisters reveals much about the personality and nature of Jesus. He cared deeply for those who were sick, and for those affected by the death/sickness of others. Jesus produces a paradigm of care and empathy that should be modeled by the Church. When one considers the connection between Christianity and the rise of medical advancement, it is obvious that stories such as Lazarus’ resurrection relay the proper spirit of care to address the bereaved and sick with.
Jesus interaction with lepers is also of importance to a Christian understanding of medical care. Leprosy was a plague in the ancient world, with no cure and a high transmissibility rate. Not only physical repercussions but social repercussions were present with a diagnosis of leprosy. Lepers were often forced out of normal social circles. Ostracized from friends, family, and any familiar social context for fear of them transmitting the disease. After his momentous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus crosses path with a leper. Lepers in Jewish society were to not come into contact with those who were clean, and it was forbidden to touch one who was a leper. Leviticus details the seriousness of the disease, “The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:45-46). Jesus contradicts that Mosaic law by doing this, “Reaching out his hand, Jesus touched him, saying, “I am willing; be made clean.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Matthew 8:3).Jesus reaching out to touch the most disgusting and wretched part of Jewish culture reveals a spirit of care and service that was foreign at the time. Later, especially with Basil of Caesarea at his hospital, care was often given to lepers. The generous mercy of Jesus in interacting and healing this leper is obvious. However, that mercy should not be extended to only the leper but to all who are weak and sick. Society may have found the sickly undesirable and a burden. Jesus however presents to Christians that all are valuable and deserving of treatment. Early Christian medical centers embraced care for leprosy just as Jesus did, but even more, they assimilated the mercy of Jesus in treating those who held no value as their own model of care. Much more could be said of examples of mercy and medical care, but these examples reveal the Christian attitude towards the sick. Jesus’ ministry reveals to readers that he held a deep and passionate empathy for those who possessed physical maladies.
Christianity and Mercy to Children
How someone treats those who cannot protect themselves, namely defenseless children, reveals the significance a society places on human life. Jesus warns against the unfair treatment of children, “But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea!” (Matthew 18:6). The standalone point of Jesus’ warning of fair treatment of children is impactful. Those who mistreat children should be put on alert by the warning of Jesus’. Much of the value system employed by the western world is not thoroughly appreciated. The fair treatment of children is assumed generally to be a core tenet of most western countries. Many take for granted why children are deemed to be important. In this section, a synopsis of Roman cultures approach to children juxtaposed against Christian approaches in the early church will be very telling. This synopsis will give an understanding of how Christianity revolutionized the significance of a child’s life.
Ethical treatment of children was not always the norm in the Greco-Roman world. There was often a disregard for the humanity and importance of children’s lives. Infanticide is a large word, but the definition is a dark subject. It involves the killing or murdering of children. Early Christians opposed and took steps to address the flippant approach to infanticide taken by the culture of the time. Documentation from the time tells two telling facts: 1) The murderous spirit of Rome’s approach towards children, 2) Christian’s of the time took a merciful and empathetic approach towards children during the early church period. Cicero relays the teaching of Roman law, “Deformed infants shall be killed”.204 Seneca, another relevant Roman source from the time says: “Mad dogs we knock on the head; the fierce and savage ox we slay; sickly sheep we put to the knife to keep them from infecting the flock; unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal…”.205 Maybe the most recognized of the Greek Philosophers, Aristotle, is contemptible of human decency: “As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child)”.206 “Exposing” was a term for the Roman practice of abandoning children to the elements. If a child was found to undesirable or too much of a burden, they were abandoned in any number of outdoor locations to die from lack of care or to be rescued by another.
Christianity, a still a largely un-respected group, offered a deeper respect of humanity. The Didache, a sort of early Christian manual on behavior and church practice says : “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born”.207 The Didache is dated to around 100 A.D. So, in the context of the very early and primitive church, a condemnation of abortion and infanticide is made. The Letter of Barnabas, another early Christian writing, makes comments very similar to those in the Didache. Christians were unique in their opposition of these evil practices, according to Larry Hurtado: “So far as we know, the only wide-scale criticism of the practice, and the only collective refusal to engage in infant exposure in the first three centuries AD, was among Jews and then also early Christians”.208 Tertullian in his work Apology, defends Christians against wild claims of wrong doing, writing near the end of the 2nd century. In so doing, he often turns arguments back onto the Romans themselves. Claims of Christian’s sacrificing children and then eating them were rampant. Tertullian responds, “we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it…. That I may refute more thoroughly these charges, I will show that in part openly, in part secretly, practices prevail among you which have led you perhaps to credit similar things about us”.209 Tertullian elaborates throughout the apology about the practice of infanticide and exposure, “First of all, you [pagans] expose your children, so that they may be taken up by any compassionate passer-by, to whom they are quite unknown!”.210 He even gives a detailed medical explanation of abortion practices. Thus presenting even further evidence of how little Romans culture respected the lives of children:
Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument that is formed with a nicely adjusted flexible frame for first of all opening the uterus and then keeping it open. It also has a circular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with careful, but unflinching care. Its last appendage is a blunted or covered hook, by which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is brought about in this treacherous robbery of life. From its infanticide function, they give it the name, “killer of the infant”—which infant, of course, had once been alive.211
Other obvious Christian influences from this period point towards a better standard of treatment for children. A series of Latin Inscriptions teach clearly the early Church’s role in dealing with the topic of child abandonment. A series of Latin inscriptions, titled Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, further reveal the validity of Christian response to child abandonment. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity outlines the significance of these inscriptions, also detailing the topic in a letter written from Augustine: “Christians took in these exposed children to save them, though often they could do nothing more than bury them, as the tombs of many children and inscriptions in the catacombs attest (Diehl II, 142–143); in some cases consecrated virgins (Aug., Ep. 98) or benevolent wealthy families educated them”.212 The specific statement from Augustine that the encyclopedia mentions, says this: “Again, sometimes foundlings which heartless parents have exposed in order to their being cared for by any passer-by, are picked up by holy virgins, and are presented for baptism by these persons, who neither have nor desire to have children of their own”.213 These examples of Christian mercy to abandoned children stand well by themselves. However, early Christians put their money where their mouth was and actually began to take in and care for these abandoned children. So much so, that in many cases churches became the new drop-off point for these abandoned children. Despite persecutions common to the early church, their efforts in calling for a better way to treat children provided a better way to treat children. Emperor Valentinian brought an end to infanticide and criminalized child abandonment. In the fifth century it was required that abandoned children be announced to the church as these had become the recognized caregivers for these needy children.214
Christianity and Mercy to Children: Against Abortion
The quick survey of child treatment in the Roman Empire and Christianity’s response sets an expected standard of treatment for children. Abortion, being a medical and ethical issue, is impacted by the synopsis of the last section. The issue of abortion was present during the Roman period, especially as evidenced by the quotation of Tertullian. Children were treated in a different manner by Christians then by their Roman counterparts. This still has huge implications for Christians in the 21st century. While abandoning children may not be the issue it was for the early church, abortion runs rampant and is amongst the most hotly debated of cultural topics. The Christian ideals in opposing “exposure” apply in much the same way to abortion, as treatment of children as significant and valuable does and has not changed for Christianity.
Michelle Wolf, enjoyed a moment of fame for her speech at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner several years ago, made bold claims about life and abortion. In one of her episode’s of The Break, she summarizes much of the flippant behavior of abortion advocates towards the unborn. At one point in the comedy routine she exclaims, “God bless abortions and God bless America” while sporting her patriotic outfit. While invoking God’s blessing was probably meant only as a jab at Christians and Conservatives, it was perhaps only her 2nd largest blunder of the evening. In another portion of her show she claims, “Look, access to abortion is good and important,” Wolf claims, “Some people say abortion is killing a baby. It’s not. It’s stopping a baby from happening”. There is a lot to unpack in Wolf’s comments, but much of where the debate revolves, is captured in Wolf’s comments.
It is important to point out where the crux of the whole abortion argument really lies. Wolfe helped define that tipping point by raising questions about personhood, especially when that personhood begins. The focal point centers on how to define personhood, more clearly, at what point exactly does the child in the womb become a person? Is it at the point of conception? When a heartbeat is detected inside of the womb? Perhaps when the child becomes viable outside of the womb? While there may be many on the left who claim personal autonomy (E.g. The woman’s right to choose what happens to her body) is the sole reasoning needed for abortion, personhood contests that claimed fact. If a child in the womb is a person, that child’s right to live trumps the woman’s right to bodily choice as the child is a separate human being. So, it would seem a clear distinction must be drawn on where exactly human life begins. It is traditionally the argument of Christianity that life begins at conception and it is the inverse argument of Liberals that life begins somewhere further down the line. What does science have to say about when life begins?
There are many milestones within the womb which point to a child being alive, at around 3-4 weeks after conception modern medical technology can detect a heartbeat. While a pregnant woman is unable to feel movement of the child in the womb till later, the child begins to move independently around 6 weeks post-conception. However, no one is arguing that the child (Fetus would be the appropriate term for pro-choice advocates to use) is not alive. It is obvious that the embryo within the womb possesses life. What really lies at stake is when does that “alive” status turn into personhood? The road becomes incredibly slippery when a pro-choice advocate tries to place a time stamp on personhoods beginning. It is important to note that this is a question that science is not able to accurately answer. Science can certainly answer the question of where life begins, but as pointed out the real issue lies with personhood. Personhood is a question best answered as a metaphysical endeavor and not a scientific one. Ultimately, there are many who will posit that those in the womb are not deserving of personhood. The goal of those in favor of denying personhood to children should be to locate non-negotiable criteria for personhood. Then, they will ultimately include all those who are obviously persons and exclude those who they believe are not, often the unborn.
Often, the claim that the unborn are less developed leads pro-choice advocates to claim that abortion is morally acceptable. One could receive various answers as to when a fetus becomes a person: viability outside of the womb, when the child breathes its first, etc. Most of their claims will rely upon some point of development for the fetus. It is obvious that an unborn child is less developed then an adult human. What is unclear, is how that disqualifies an unborn child from being given person status. For example, a 6-year-old girl cannot have a child because she is biologically unable to give birth. However, that does not disqualify the 6-year-old from holding personhood. The 6-year-old is obviously just as valuable as a woman who can give birth. The unborn child is less developed then the 6-year-old, but that has no bearing on the unborn having value.
These criteria are usually arbitrary, for example, Dependency. Pro-choice advocates claim that since an unborn child is dependent upon the mother for life it does not qualify for personhood. Toddlers and newborns still rely entirely upon their mothers, yet no one is questioning the personhood of an infant. Just because an unborn depends upon a mother does not make it acceptable to end its life. Killing newborns, Alzheimer patients, and other dependents would be acceptable if you follow pro-choice logic on abortion – as all are dependent on others for their life to continue. Often, in this specific vein of discussion some claim that the unborn is a “parasite”. There is one glaring issue with that claim; parasites find hosts unwillingly and leach off their resources. Whereas unborn children are placed willingly in the womb by the choice of the mother to have unprotected sex. That child in the womb certainly does not meet the criteria of being a parasite.
Pro-choice advocates will argue that exiting the womb magically transfers personhood. The environment of the child or anyone for that matter has no bearing on personhood. Obviously, the unborn child is located in a different environment then an adult. An astronaut who is in orbit above earth retains his or her personhood. No one could deny his personhood based on him/her being in a radically different environment from the average human. Changing your environment cannot change your status as a human being. Neither can moving 7 inches through the birth canal turn a life with no value into a life with value. Yet, the question has not been answered on when exactly personhood begins. Being alive is not at question, no one would argue that a child in the womb is not alive. Concerning a fetus, it is obviously biologically a human. Therefore, the pro-choice advocate must make a distinction between human beings and persons. Namely, they must claim that fetuses are humans but lack the criteria of being a person.
Another common thread hidden within pro-choice reasoning is the concept of functionalism. Functionalism is the attempt to define a person by how they function or behave. This type of definition is helpful within the scientific field so as to accurately predict and experiment. This concept is not nearly as relevant as reason and common sense when dealing with issues outside of the hard sciences. There is a huge difference between who a person is and how a person behaves, between being a person and functioning as a person. It is impossible for a person to function as a person if they are not a person. However, someone can be a person without functioning as one. For example, if one is in a coma or deep sleep – or infanthood – it is almost universally recognized that they are humans despite the lack of reason or language. The function we have as persons can be an obvious sign that we are persons. However, the mistake that functionalism makes is confusing this concept of functioning as a human being as the only criteria that makes one a person. There is more value to humans then their ability to function, value can be found in the nature and essence of being human. Humans have souls and that gives an undefinable value. Functionalists are confusing the smoke with the fire, attributing the smoke to be the only point of importance and totally disregarding the fire (the soul) as being important.
As already stated, functionalists identify humans as being persons only if they function according to their criteria. What is it that makes one function well enough to meet the criteria of personhood? This line is drawn by those who possess the power to enforce their will. When it is the desire of those in power to kill the innocent, they simply need to define them as not possessing personhood. Nazi’s did it to six million Jews and abortion advocates to do it to children in the womb. Humankind constantly reminds us of the evil it is capable of, one simply needs to turn on the news. Given that humans are tinted with evil, the decision to abort children becomes easy – especially when it is based upon self-interest.
A patient in a coma is not doing anything radically different from what a fetus is. Yet, that patient is granted personhood because it looks different and meets certain physical criteria (fully formed, etc). Despite this hypothetical patient being devoid of higher brain function; not possessing logic or reason, in this functionalistic approach it would be totally acceptable to kill the coma patient because he/she lacks mental functioning ability. This truly shows the inconsistency of this functionalistic approach, it makes it acceptable to kill anyone who does not function within certain criteria. It just seems that the only people who get killed are those who cannot defend themselves – the unborn.
So, if functioning as a human is not the way to define personhood, what is? It is obvious that there are multiple facets to personhood – a physical body, consciousness and use of logic, etc. Not being fully developed does not subtract from one’s personhood, as discussed earlier. Being a human only minutes after conception or being an 80 year old human is irrelevant – both are persons. What then makes one human besides the possession of a physical body in some stage of development? A pro-choice advocate would claim a fetus is only a potential person. However, it must actually be something in order to be a potential person. What then is a potential person, to use the vocabulary of pro-choice advocates? That term is logically inconsistent, because there are no potential persons any more than there are potential dogs. All persons, no matter their stage of development or level of mental cognition are persons. Actual dogs are potential barkers, and actual persons are potential teachers. The being is actual, whereas the functioning is potential. The confusion arises when a potential person is mistaken for a potentially functioning person; again, functionalism rears its ugly head.
Being a human at any stage of development makes one a human. Evidenced by the earlier discussion that a human being is just as human when an infant as when an adult. Mental cognition is again not the best identifier of personhood, because those who are in a coma or asleep do not have conscious mental cognition. When one looks at the main arguments of pro-choice advocates, they are usually arguing on the basis of bodily development or mental cognition. When one argues that bodily development and mental cognition are the end all in personhood argumentation, we have shown that a large segment of the population would not meet those criteria. That means if you cannot apply it across the spectrum on born people then it is unfair to apply it to the unborn. When the two arguments using development and mental cognition are seen through the pro-choice worldview, that unborn are only potential persons, it is obvious that their criteria cannot be fully applied across all humans because it would include the right to kill people who do not meet their criteria (Those in comas, etc).
Something has still been left out. Looking at functionalism, dependency, development and environment as topics relating to personhood have hopefully been enlightening. What ultimately confers personhood will always be up for debate if humans do not have a proper understanding of consciousness, self-awareness, and our creator. In the naturalistic worldview consciousness is the most deadly of topics to discuss. That is because naturalists do not propose a concept of consciousness and self-awareness that is especially convincing. Michael Ruse, an atheist makes this comment: “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing…there is no scientific answer”.215 How do random events, like a big bang theory or whatever theory for the universe’s beginning is popular, explain how you get from random atoms to a complex human consciousness with the ability to reason and notice good and evil?
First, we should ask, what is consciousness? So as to make clear the greater point we are trying to make about personhood. Consciousness is that state of being aware of oneself, surroundings, and the ability to process incoming information. The qualities of reason and complex thought could be included as part of this process. John Locke described consciousness as, “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind”.216 Obviously, there is a sharp distinction between a man and a dog’s perception of the world. Our consciousness, and the qualities of that consciousness, allow us to stand in a position superior to the animal kingdom. The randomness of a naturalistic worldview does not offer a good understanding of consciousness. The Christian worldview does. It requires consciousness to begat consciousness. For humans to express and experience the unique nature of consciousness, only another being with consciousness could make that a reality for humans – God. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli offer an argument from consciousness:
1. “We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence”217
One of the key statements in the argument from consciousness centers on the term “intelligible”. As human minds can grasp and process the universe around them, that ability must have proceeded from a greater intelligence. In the Christian worldview, that giver of intelligence must be God. It is that consciousness which makes humans valuable. The image of God language used early in the book of Genesis begins to take on even more relevance when viewed in the context of consciousness and intelligibility. When God confers intelligibility and consciousness onto humans he not only confers mental and emotional ability. He also confers undefinable and eternal value to the soul of every human. As that consciousness and intelligible nature now has the ability to reach back to God and relate to other humans in a special and ordained manner.
This has massive implications when viewing the topic of abortion through this lens of consciousness and intelligibility. If being created in the image of God confers the ability of consciousness, it also confers value to the human being. The human’s ability to reach beyond themselves to seek an eternal God and connect to others socially, emotionally, and intellectually sets them apart. The eternal nature of the soul also brings value. As this consciousness of man will exist eternally in a self-aware state, the eternal status of that soul is infinitely valuable to God. When the child in the womb will undoubtedly present itself to the world with consciousness, intelligibility, and an eternal soul – the personhood of the unborn becomes undeniable. The opponent of the pro-life position may say at this point, “But the fetus only possesses potential consciousness and potential intelligibility, it has not yet even reached the qualities and standards you have set for personhood”. I would quickly refer this type of claim to the “potential dog” argument from several pages back. While a child in the womb may not be functioning with a consciousness and ability to intelligibly interpret the world; that quality will one day be a reality. Remember, according to this ”potential life” argument, all individuals not falling under the category of fully conscious and fully intelligible, would fall short of the standard placed by pro-choice activists.
If one were to be in a coma, suffering from dementia, mentally handicapped, or any other number of maladies – that person does not qualify for personhood. It is only a matter of time before those in power abuse the standards of personhood to abuse and mistreat these “potential humans”. A consistent application of personhood to those temporarily not inside the qualifications of personhood, means all kinds of people suddenly exist outside the confines of what would be defined as personhood. For these, their very futures could be in jeopardy. It is obvious that a potential person is still very much a person, just because they are not currently functioning as one, the inclusion of being made in God’s image make the unborn infinitely valuable. God granting human beings the ability to be conscious and intelligible, along with the eternal nature of the soul makes human being eternally valuable. Christianity provides the basis for defining personhood, a naturalistic worldview does not. In the naturalist random system, it becomes difficult to define personhood, consciousness, and the value of a human. Christianity provides a system characterized by dignity, fair treatment of children, and the opposition of murderous practices throughout history. The Church fought for infants during the early church period in opposition to Roman practices, and it is the church who leads the way in fighting for the value of all humans – especially the unborn.
Conclusion
Much ground has been covered in this section as a whole. From detailing the history of the hospital movement, to understanding Christian mercy, down to the treatment of children. All are inextricably linked back to Christian views on how to treat and recognize value in others. It is obvious to many that Christianity has brought much value to medical treatment. Christianity also comes with a demand to treat those well even when the society at large does not. That is no more evident than when the merciful Christian faith brings itself to bear in addressing disaster, poverty, and other sinful realities of our broken world. The treatment of children, as we learned, is vital to the health and dignity of a culture. Christianity brought its system of ideals and ethics to bear against the Roman world’s flippant approach to the lives of infants. That approach has inspired long-term Christian beliefs, influencing the way Christian’s approach abortion, medicine and mercy.
- Ferngren, Gary B. Medicine & Health Care in Early Christianity. Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. 37.
- Ibid, 59-60.
- Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
- Saint, Basil, and Blomfield Jackson. Letters and Select Works. Grand Rapids, Mich., W.B. Eerdmanns, 1983. Letter to the Governor Elias.
- Basil, Saint, and Basil. 2010. Ascetical Works (the Fathers of the Church, Volume 9). CUA Press. P 276.
- D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History (Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall, 1995) p. 314-315.
- Andrew T. Crislip. From Monastery to Hospital: Christian Monasticism and the Transformation of Health Care in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. P. 8.
- Ibid, 9.
- Ibid, 68.
- Aitken, JT. Fuller H W C & Johnson D. The Influence of Christians in Medicine. Nottingham: Intervarsity. 1984. Pg. 10-11.
- Green, M. The Transmission of Ancient Theories of Female Physiology and Disease Through the early Middle Ages. Ph. D. Princeton University. 1985.
- Aitken, 12
- Ibid, 11.
- Ibid, 13-14.
- Riva MA, Cesana G, The charity and the care: the origin and the evolution of hospitals, Eur J Intern Med (2012), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2012.11.002
- Ibid.
- George Deaux, The Black Death 1347. New York: Weybright and Talley, 1969. 93–94.
- Massachusetts general Hospital. “Bartlett, Reverend John.” History.Massgeneral.org. Accessed February 10, 2023.
http://history.massgeneral.org/catalog/Detail.aspx?itemId=78&searchFor=bartlett. - Rosenberg, Charles E. The Care of Strangers: The Rise of America’s Hospital System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1995. 45-50.
- Penn People: Thomas Bond. Archives.UPenn.edu. University of Pennsylvania. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-people/biography/thomas-bond/
- Franklin, Benjamin. Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 2019. 65.
- “In the Beginning.” Uphs.upenn.edu. Penn Medicine. Accessed February 16, 2023. https://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html.
- The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, April 1, 1755, through September 30, 1756, ed. Leonard W. Labaree. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1963. 61–62.
- Jeff Levin, Partnerships between the faith-based and medical sectors: Implications for preventive medicine and public health, Preventive Medicine Reports, Volume 4, 2016, Pages 344-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.07.009.
- Olsen, Andrew. 2016. Evangelicals and International Aid: Insights from a Landscape Survey of U.S. Churches. Medford, MA: The Fletcher School, Tufts University, and South Hamilton, MA: The Center for the Study of Global Christianity, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
- Rachel M. McCleary, Robert J. Barro. Private voluntary organizations engaged in international assistance, 1939-2004. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37, no. 3 (2008): 512-536.
- Hailey, John. “Ladybirds, Missionaries and NGOs. Voluntary Organizations and Co-Operatives in 50 Years of Development: A Historical Perspective on Future Challenges.” Public Administration & Development 19, no. 5 (12, 1999): 470.
- Religiously Affiliated People More Likely to Donate, Whether to Place of Worship or Other Charitable Organizations. 2017. Philanthropy.iupui.edu. University of Indiana. October 24, 2017. https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/news-events/news-item/religiously-affiliated-people-more-likely-to-donate,-whether-to-place-of-worship-or-other-charitable-organizations.html?id=241.
- Lucas Petrus Kenter. Marcus Tullius Cicero, de Legibus. Publisher: Adolf M. Hakkert. 1972. Book 3.8.
- Seneca. On Anger. Publisher: Aubrey Stewart. 2017. 1.15.
- Aristotle. Politics. Medford, Massachusetts: Tufts University. 1957. 7.1335b. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1:7.
- Draper, Jonathan A. 2015. Didache. Sbl Press. 2.2.
- Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctives in the Roman World (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 148.
- Tertullian, and Terrot Reaveley Glover. 1966. Apology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Ch. 9, Pg. 21.
- Ibid, 22.
- Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul. Wyatt North Publishing, LLC. 2020. Chapter 25, Pg. 57
- Angelo Di Berardino, Thomas C Oden, Joel C Elowsky, James Hoover, and Augustinianum Rome,. 2014. Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. Downers Grove, Illinois: Ivp Academic. Child Entry.
- Browne, Swallow, Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Letter XCVIII. Letter from Augustine to Boniface, Vol. 1.
- Gerhard Uhlhorn. Christian Charity in the Ancient Church. New York: Charles Scribrier’s Sons, 1883, 386.
- Michael Ruse, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2001), 73.
- All references of this form are by book, chapter and section to John Locke, An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding, Peter Nidditch, ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. - Kreeft, Peter, and Robert K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.