Pastor Mark Sell shared with me a summary of his presentation on the January 21, 2010 Supreme Court (SC) ruling in the case CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. This is getting a lot of play because of corporations funding campaign speech. That is not the big news, and if it were the news, probably wouldn’t appear here. Rather, the big news centers around the word “person” and how it is defined and used. This has monumental ramifications on all of U.S. society and in the historic Christian Church. So, with his permission, Pr. Sell:
.
.
Law & The Courts
The real issue is the word person, meaning, “That which subsists of itself.” Stay with me. I know it seems quite “egghead,” but it influences every legal transaction in our country. The recent ruling begins to return to the historical definition of person, That definition was in place for most of Western civilization until the 1973 Roe v. Wade SC decision. (The thrust was a states’ rights issue along with privacy, but it is also seen to impact the legal definition of a “person.”)
According to the law, a person is that which subsists of itself. It is a definition that assumes and substantiates the unique individual “thing” or entity. This is why a whale is a person, a plant is a person, a corporation is a person, and a human is a person—that which subsists of itself. It defines an individual who/which has legal (philosophical and medical) standing.
When the psychological definition of person became the foundation of law, it confused many of our legal decisions and therefore confused the moral ramifications of persons. Of course, the most detrimental ramification of the Roe v. Wade definition of person to our society and subsequent legal decisions was the effect on the person in the womb and the culture war that has ensued.
If you change the individualistic definition of person, that which subsists of itself, then you can do the same outside of the womb if the psychological criteria are not met. The implications of this extends from birth to death.
Humans are also persons in the law—in and outside of the womb. If a young or old human person doesn’t meet our psychological definitions, the law can change their legal standing and, thus, their importance to the society medically, philosophically, and educationally.
This is why we now face not only decisions about the person in the womb after 1973, but now also persons outside of the womb. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, marriage, family, individual rights, and so on, are all controversial issues today, when in the past, they weren’t. It’s because we are asked, “What do you mean by person?”
The One, Holy, Christian and Apostolic Church
The Holy Trinity
The Holy Trinity is understood as one God in three persons. What is the meaning of person in the Trinity? Again, “That which subsists of itself.” The three persons of the Trinity are unique individual persons, not based upon a psychological definition, but upon the historic use of the word person. This is foundational to the Scriptures, creeds, and what we confess as Christians about the Holy Trinity. Of course, the very foundation of our Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ, the God/Man, who subsists of Himself.
The personhood of Christ is why we confess that Jesus died on the cross, not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost. The latter are different persons—they subsist of themselves.
The consequence of the Roe v. Wade definition of person has terribly influenced all of Christianity because, especially in American churches. It has allowed the psychological definition of “person” to influence who Jesus is and how we practice the teachings He fulfilled from the Old Testament and was in the New Testament and how He continues to be present in the Word and Sacraments.
This is why the Holy Christian Church is part of our culture war of “persons.” Not only is every human on the line, along with marriage, abortion, children, but most importantly our salvation in the person Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
The fury is really over the definition of person, even though it is starting with “corporations” who are persons in the law and who thus have free speech. However, this return to the historic and common use of the term person is an earth-shattering shift for the good of our society and the Church. The historic use of person is the definition the Christian Church uses when she speaks of the three persons of the Trinity. Roe v. Wade was based upon a psychological definition of person, not the historical “uniqueness” of personhood. Roe v. Wade destroyed the Trinity, along with millions of babies.
The Particulars
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
| 19 | 1/21/10 | 08-205 | Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n | K | 558/2 |
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
No. 70-18.
Roe v Wade: Entire decision
Pastor Sell has promised to attend to the comments. So, if you are so enclined, feel free to engage him.
No related posts.
Tags: 08–205, abortion, CITIZENS UNITED, end of life issues, Holy Trinity, Roe v Wade, sanctity of life, Supreme Court, v. FEDERAL ELECTIONCOMMISSION
I’m not sure what you meant when you said that the psychological definition of person has affected the way some Christians view Christ and the Trinity. Could you explain further?
Hi Pastor Yount,
Sorry I'm late in responding. The Trinity is based upon the historical/philosophical understanding of the word person, "that which subsists" of itself," as reflected in the Athanasian Creed and Augsburg Confession, Article 1. In the battle over abortion what is defined as person is based upon Joseph's Fletcher (Episcopalian theologian and bioethicist) who proposed a list of fifteen “positive propositions” of personhood. These attributes are:
minimum intelligence, self-awareness, self-control, a sense of time, a sense of futurity, a sense of the past, the capability of relating to others, concern for others, communication, control of existence, curiosity, change and changeability, balance of rationality and feeling, idiosyncrasy, neocortical functioning.
continued….
Liberal protestantism picked up the mantel of a psychological understanding of persons and have redefined so many areas of theology in conjunction with historical criticism which gutted our grammatical historical interpretation of scripture along with our historical theological distinctions.
For liberalism, the intersection of these two things brought forth the "historical" relativity of the development of the theology of the Holy Trinity and thereby introduced and pushed forward the "persons" of the Trinity in psychological and relational definitions rather than the importance of the distinction of the three persons (hypostases, ousios or succinct, separate "entities,") of the Trinity, thereby diluting the Holy Trinity to a psychological and relational human concept instead of a mystery of 3 in 1. Of course, the Father and the Son are not human persons, only Jesus. Only Jesus would have psychological description. Furthermore, this destroys the legal/juridical understanding of justification wherein one person pays for the sins of the world. As we now clearly see, this leads to universalism. What is at issue now is the declaration of the judge to the "person" as righteous.
continued….
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, "The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Hope this helps… Mark