The Christian church has long insisted that every human life matters.
This teaching goes back to the creation account in Genesis where we read: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen 1:26). An application of this is made a little later: Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Gen 9:6). The ten commandments put it this way : You shall not murder (Exod 20:13, and as upheld by Jesus in Matt 5:21).
The Scriptures teach that the intentional taking of a human life is a sin against God with just a few exceptions. Those exceptions include judicially sanctioned execution for the most serious of crimes, killing in just war and self-defence, along with terminating a pregnancy when the mother’s life is at risk. Each exception is a matter of further debate as to the circumstances in which they are permissible.
The principle stands. Because every human bears the image of God in a way that distinguishes us from animals, the intentional killing of a person is a sin against God who created that life.
This teaching is under challenge in modern Australia in areas connected with the start and ending of human life.
Abortion is now effectively decriminalised and publicly funded as a human right and health care choice of the mother. The worthy payment of a $4,225 bonus to mothers suffering a stillborn event is now available as a payment where a late-term abortion is conducted. This is an Orwellian ‘non-baby bonus’ funded by the taxpayer who becomes an accessory to killing the unborn.
Euthanasia is now widely permitted in Australia. As was anticipated when legislation was introduced, there is increasing pressure to relax the ‘world’s best safeguards’ so as to widen access to death on demand. Christian medical practitioners and aged care institutions are under pressure to facilitate voluntary assisted dying despite their conscientious objections.
Why stop there? Philosopher Peter Singer’s reasoning about the ready ending of human life makes sense on a pragmatic human-centred ethic. On this basis, why not terminate any pregnancy where there is potential disability or it is an inconvenience ? Why not make a huge saving on NDIS and the aged care budget by terminating any life that is troublesome and expensive? The dystopian world of the 1973 Solyent Green film has impeccable logic once we surrender the sanctity of all life.
The Biblical prohibition on the intentional taking of human life has wider implications.
The Westminster Larger Catechism (Questions 135 and 136) broadly extends a Christian view of the value of all life. This includes ‘… withdrawing the necessary means for the preservation of life, along with anger, hatred, envy and ‘.. whatever else tends to the destruction of the life of any’. On the positive side, it includes ‘… all lawful efforts to preserve the life of ourselves and others’ along with ‘.. protecting and defending the innocent’.
Consider some possible implications of this in the contemporary world:
- Creating a hierarchy of human value based on race, gender, ability, age or other attributes
- Peoples suffering from increasing extreme weather events
- The residents of Gaza left homeless, starving and bereft of medical care caught in the dreadful end-game of Israel and Hamas
- The Sudanese family forced from home and livelihood by the world’s ‘forgotten war’
- The indigenous people of Australia who lag behind on every index of human flourishing
- Afghani women who are hidden behind the veil and denied education and basic human rights
- Women and girls traded as sex objects
- Minorities in India, Iran, mainland China and many other places
- Religious, and other minorities, applying for access through Australia’s asylum, refugee and immigration programs.
The list can be multiplied. Having discarded the reference point of God as definer of the ‘good’ we are left to a world in which pragmatism, expedience, economic rationalism and radical individualism shape ethics. This is not far from the paganism of the Graeco-Roman culture of Jesus’ day. Nor is it far from some contemporary cultures where the value of an individual life is subject to the grim calculus of the greater good of the greatest number.
A clarification is needed. To embrace concern for the welfare of all human life is not to join Gustavo Gutiérrez and other liberation theologians in defining human welfare and freedom as the heart of the gospel. The incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended and returning Christ and his atoning sacrifice are the heart of the gospel. All else is the ‘another gospel’ which draws a Biblical curse (Gal 1:6-9). Concern for the value, sanctity and protect of human life is, however, a grace-driven and necessary consequence of that gospel.
A Christian concern for the glory of God and the common good prompts his people to raise their voice. As we are able, let us text, write, advocate and agitate to civil rulers and societal agencies. Let us cry out for the vulnerable whose lives are devalued. Let us raise our voice to the heavenly throne through our great high priest, begging God to save us from ourselves.
David Burke
Moderator-General
August 2025
