The Western world grapples with the fear of suffering. Not simply our own, actual suffering, but the suffering of others and our own hypothetical suffering. The idea of having to suffer offends our sensibilities. There is no purpose to it. And so we demand that we have the option to opt-out of suffering and along with that we demand the right to opt other people out of their suffering so that we don’t have to suffer along with them.
We term this mercy.
Here is what mercy now can look like. Parents of a child born with congenital health issues for which there is no cure or treatment are being told that the government has decided to end their child’s life – in the best interest of the child. Despite the fact that the parents do not want their child to die. Despite the fact that there is experimental treatment available out of the country that could change the conditions for which the child is being sentenced to death. Not only this, but now that their appeals for out-of-country treatment have been denied, the parents are also being denied the right to have their own child die in their own home, rather than in a hospital.
I’m still trying to see where the mercy is involved in all of this. Perhaps because I don’t suspect that mercy is really what is being demonstrated. Efficiency. Expediency. A rigorous attention to detail, the rule of law. Bureaucratic policy. But not mercy.
This is happening in Great Britain. The country, as one observer notes, that fought against the Nazi’s and their insistence that some lives (other people, more specifically) were not worth living and therefore the government could decide to end those lives. This is where we end up without a moral compass or baseline, without anything that limits our ability or tendency to define and redefine even such beautiful words as mercy until they mean the very opposite of why we find them beautiful.
This redefinition is evil. It is evil because it reduces humanity to a matter of expediency and personal preferences, carefully sanitized in legalese and policy-speak. It is evil because it holds the dictates of a human being or institution as ultimate and final, without recognizing that such beings and institutions are inherently unable to provide a single, permanent baseline from which to operate. So the decisions made today may be completely opposite the decisions that would have been made 50 years ago, or the decisions that might be made 50 years hence.
We (Christians) are being inculcated to sympathy with this evil. I find the seeds of it even in myself, despite being older and less prone to direct means of subversion and brain-washing (like schools). We are being wooed towards sympathy because of our own fears and hopes and wishes.
Yesterday I visited one of our long-time members who is homebound. She has been homebound for the past seven years, by and large. Over those years I have brought her Communion and led us in simple worship together. She is an amazing woman. Her mind is sharp, her will is formidable, she is articulate, cultured, and refined, and she has a zest for life that would be admirable in a person a quarter her age.
When I saw her two weeks ago she was having a good day. We shared Communion and prayer. I could see much of her through her condition. When I went yesterday, however, it was a bad day, and I could see so very, very little of the woman she is. She was fearful, her words slurred and at times indecipherable. Her fear was palpable and audible, her weakness striking. She didn’t know who I was, or who the woman caring for her was, or where she was. She begged to go home while sitting in her own living room of 50 years.
I left asking God why He didn’t take her yet. She has been ready to go for years. Her faith is strong, but her mind and body have been subverted and twisted by time. What point is there in having her linger, I wondered. I even flirted with the thought that perhaps God was being unkind to her in this. She deserves to die. It would be a blessing to her. It would be merciful.
Merciful to whom, I suddenly thought. Perhaps it would be merciful to me, so that I didn’t need to keep going to see her. Merciful to me so that I wasn’t made uncomfortable by her condition and deterioration, fearful that I might one day be in her place. Merciful to me in that I wouldn’t have to accommodate myself to her limitations, and that I could leave feeling happy and care-free, to go about my daily routine and duties, rather than struggling with mortality and the damnable reality of sin and death that lurks within my own frame.
She is still herself. She isn’t less herself, or less of a human being, than she was two years ago or twenty years ago or eighty years ago. She is entitled to all the same love and care and concern. Is it harder to be with her? Yes. Which is perhaps why it is all the more important to be with her. To come to grips with the effects of sin in our lives. To seek to love her consistently and care for her consistently, rather than simply deciding that at some arbitrary point or in some arbitrary state of mind or body, she is no longer herself, no longer deserving of the life that God himself has given and sustained her in. Perhaps part of the blessing of suffering is that we learn to see past and through these things, both in ourselves and others.
She is not defined by her dementia. She is not defined by her physical frailty. She is not defined by her suffering, and neither she nor I have the right to redefine her as such and cease to see her for what she is. Beautiful. Alive by the grace and wisdom of God. And therefore an opportunity to love and practice mercy with in the truest and best sense of that word, rather than the senseless way our culture wants to redefine it. Perhaps as I continue to care for her in this way, it will better prepare me to care for others in similar conditions, and will further prepare me – inasmuch as may be possible – for me to endure that condition should it become my own one day.
Mercy, like hope, isn’t necessarily expedient. But we are in a dangerous place without either.