In the case of Terri, the relevant facts are not complicated: An innocent, living woman is being deprived of basic care by her guardian with the intent of dehydrating and starving her so she will die.

There are many subjects on which good Christians may disagree, but whether the state can torture and murder an innocent woman is not one of them. From a biblical, medical, and ethical perspective, we begin with the assumptions that only God can give or take away life, that He has enumerated specific circumstances in which humans may kill others, and that quality of life evaluations are not among them. We also recognize that the Bible teaches an emphatic duty of basic care (food, water, shelter, air) which parents and guardians must provide to dependents, regardless of their health, mental state, or age. Consequently, those biblical ethicists who embrace the sufficiency of Scripture recognize that the following issues are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo should be tortured and murdered:

(1) Whether Terri’s parents or Michael Schiavo have custodial guardianship over Terri.

There are helpful strategic issues surrounding who is guardian over Terri. (In my view, an unrepentant, adulterous husband with financial motives in the murder of his wife has no right to guardianship.) But from an ethical and historical legal perspective, the issue of guardianship is irrelevant to the question of whether Terri may be starved and dehydrated to death. It is irrelevant because both the parents and the husband lack biblical jurisdiction and authority to deprive Terri of basic care. No person has the authority to take their own life through suicide, and no guardian has the biblical or common law right to make a decision to terminate a person under their custody through deprivation of basic care — ever!

(2) Whether Terri is in a “persistent vegetative state,” “minimally conscious,” “improving,” “declining” or any other status other than “dead.”

This is irrelevant because as long as the soul is in the body (i.e., as long as they are biblically “alive”), there is a non-negotiable duty of a guardian to make best efforts to provide basic care (food, water, air, shelter) for those living dependents under their care. The starvation of Terri Schiavo is not an issue of “extraordinary measures.” It is not even a medical issue per se. It is an issue of whether we will deprive a living human being of water and food.

(3) Whether Terri is experiencing a quality life.

This is irrelevant because only God may determine the purpose, length, significance, meaning, and quality of the life of another. We do not have jurisdiction to determine that some lives are worth living and others are not.

(4) Whether Terri requested of her husband that “she be allowed to die with dignity.”

It is biblically and (at common law) legally invalid to request assistance in the suicide of one’s self through starvation or any other means. Even had Terri made such a recommendation (and there is no credible evidence that she did), Terri herself lacks jurisdiction to call for her own death by dehydration, starvation, or any other means which involves the suspension of a basic, God-appointed duty of care.

Dear friends in Christ, we need God’s law, God’s Word, God’s sufficient revelation or we will perish in the twenty-first century.
One thing is clear, at a time when Christians en masse are aborting their children through the use of the Pill, are pulling the plug on their own parents, and are sending their children for discipleship to ethical Hell-pits called government schools, confusion reigns within the community of professing Christians. Division over the torture and murder of Terri is simply a reflection of the broader ethical confusion. In my view, only orthodox Christians committed to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture will have the ability to clearly and consistently provide an authoritative trumpet blast on the issue of biomedical ethics. Those professing Christians (from neo-Barthians, to natural law theorists, to cultural neutralists, libertines, and syncretists) who claim that all practices are allowed unless they are specifically forbidden (i.e., they demand proof-texts instead of careful biblical analysis of an all-sufficient text) cannot speak to the issue of Terri Schiavo since there is no clear biblical proof-text which exactly addresses the precise facts of her case. They may speak of the complexity and sadness of the issues with Terri’s case, but they cannot and will not sound a clear trumpet blast. Without an infallible standard (other than their opinion), how could they do so?

As we progress into what is arguably the most ethically challenging century in the history of the Church, we must go back to the basics of God’s Word. We must be prepared to listen to the words of Nehemiah who rallied families to help him rebuild the ruins of his culture.

“Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” (Nehemiah 4:14).

Over the next seventy-two hours, please stay tuned to Doug’s Blog as these issues are explored in greater depth.