Help Me Teach a Class
June 12th, 2006 | by Scott |This Sunday night our topic will be Stem Cell Research. Honestly, my knowledge on this subject is extremely limited.
What are your thoughts? What are our moral obligations to the sick who would benefit from this?
How do we proceed and maintain a consistent ethic of human life?
What the heck is it, in the first place?
Give me your thoughts. If I use your stuff, I’ll give you a shout-out in the podcast.
35 Responses to “Help Me Teach a Class”
By Scott on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
Is this thing turned on? Come on. Where are my theologians, ministers, doctors and ethicists? Republican view? Democrat view?
Anything?
By Jason Bybee on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
Hate to leave you hanging, but I’ll have to post something later tonight. After kids are in bed.
By mommaria on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
wow…tough topic. My understanding of stem cell research is varied and not entirely understood….but here is what I get and what I think.
Stem cell research, in a nut shell, is using “preformed but not identified tissue (stem cells, not completely grown) to be pruned, for lack of a better word, like a bonsi tree to become a certain organ (say a new ear or a pancrease etc). Funny how “virgin” cells can be shaped, but apparently they can. This can create new organs etc for those who need them.
In theory, only preborn infants stem cells (embryonic before division?) can be used to this end…so they say in theory. There has been some growth from adult cells, but they are supposedly not as “useful” as embryonic cells.
Now here is my take on this. Wow…first of all, how incredible is God that He made cells to do this.
My second thought is …wow, where are they getting the stem cells from to do this with?
my third thought is “my son will probably need another kidney in his lifetime, my mother is dying of cancer and my father is a cancer survivior. Diabetes runs in my family and high blood pressure does too. with all of this INBORN disease in my family I should be waving the biggest of flags to advocate stem cell research. You see, this research, in theory, can create a new pancrease with lower to no risk of rejection because it is grown with the recepiants cells as well. (again, this is my understanding of the situation). Not to mention what this could do to reverse/stop Alzheimer’s and Parkisons’ disease, regeneration of killed nerves in parapalegics so they can live again as “normal” (but don’t get me onto “normal”.
But I’m not overly enthusiastic about SSR because of the risks of abuse…..
at the risk of rocks coming my way (and I’m open to negotiation but not abuse)…I am for SSR if the stem cells used are of children who would be thrown away anyway (abortion). I do NOT in any way advocate abortion. I believe every life is sanctified. But the truth of the matter is people make this dire choice everyday of their own free will. Why not see the precious life give life if it has to die anyway. this creates a huge ethical issue in my mind as I type it, but who knows the benefits to the terminating mother (less guilt? but would that ease the decision? Make them think this is doing good? hmm).
Secondly, I know there is a movement to rescue the “snowflakes”…embryos frozen for future use. If the parent is not going to “use” this child or dies or whatever in the process, why not use this for research.
again, ETHICAL DILEMA for me in a big way. These are embroyos who can develop into nothing more than PEOPLE.
you can see I’m really torn.
If you can use adult SS, why don’t you. Then you have somebody who can make a choice for themselves making a choice for themselves. Free will versus taking a life to save a life, possibly.
Then we get onto the cloning and harvesting possibilities that seem like a Soylient Green proposition. Do we HARVEST and force ppl to give eggs and sperm? DO we take donated eggs and sperm like a sperm bank and breed and harvest for research? Surely what hell awaits us if we slip down that slope.
I guess it all depends on when you believe life begins, at conception or at age of viability.
I believe conception……I would rather err on the side of life.
There is one opinion.
By scott on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
Great thoughts, Maria. I, too, am torn.
The difficulty is navigating through the strident political extremes and answering the moral questions that linger beneath the surface.
The magic bullet position doesn’t wash. It’s not an immediate cosmic cure-all. Nor is it a slippery slope to embryos hanging on meat hooks in some sterile lab somewhere.
To me the moral dilemma is this: to propagate this successfully it would not mean harvesting embryos already in existence or taking babies slated for abortion. It would mean creating them specifically for the purpose of harvesting their DNA.
That’s a little too close to playing God to make me uncomfortable. Yet, I’m struck by the moral responsibility that we have to help people in need.
It’s truly a sticky wicket. I adhere to seeking to apply a consistent ethic of human life. How do we do that here? I’m not really sure.
Other thought?
By Jason Bybee on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
This is tough. SSR proponents argue that such research will provide a better life for countless individuals living with debilitating illnesses. This side of the argument believes we have a moral obligation to such individuals who are “already living”. SSR opponents believe our moral obligations extend to the unborn as well.
I have a moral objection to breeding and harvesting for research purposes. I believe the end never justifies the means. I’ll admit, though, the possibility of eradicating diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s is enticing.
Like Maria, I’m no expert here. But from my limited understanding, SSR is not something I can currently reconcile with my faith.
By Meredith on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
I understand that we have a responsibility to those is need, but at what cost do we help them? Do you rob a bank, if you have run out of money, to feed your family? At what point are we going to throw our morals away and replace them with a “at all cost” attitude?
My step father is very ill right now with small cell lung cancer. This is his 3rd time in 4 years to have it. He has had 2 other cancers as well in the last 5 years, so I know research has helped him tremendously. He told me that God created us to have a beginning and an end. He says his goal has always been to reach Heaven someday, but some of us go kicking and screaming.
I may feel different if I had a child that is sick or a parent with Alzheimer’s. I know that must be extremely difficult, but where do we draw the line?
By pat on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
Since Jen (and Clare) are both hanging on, I’ll pass this request along to her. She’s all over this topic.
By JTB on Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
Hi Scott,
I will post something else in the morning (unless of course Clare decides to take some action, but precedent suggests otherwise), but I thought I’d try to say something off the top of my head tonight. One person you might want to read is Ted Peters, a Lutheran theologian/ethicist who has written a couple books and has some good articles in Zygon (theology & science journal) on the topic. Maybe tomorrow I will have the exact references for you.
The difference between human embryonic stem cells (hES)and adult stem cells is the level of differentiation in the cells, which affects their plasticity in terms of potential growth. The hES calls are “totipotent,” which means that they can become any kind of tissue, given the right stimulus and whatnot. Stem cells derived from adults, from sources like bone marrow, or even the stem cells derived from the umbilical cord blood, are more diffentiated and are referred to as “pluripotent.” These cells can become a variety of tissue but they are more limited–there are some forms they cannot take. So there is a more restricted application for the cells derived from these sources.
Currently the ethical quandary is of course the fact that deriving a stem cell line from an embryo means destroying the embryo qua embryo in the process. Basically, when the embryo is a 16-cell blastula, which is about 4 days’ development, a pipette is used to extract the inner mass cells. One of my profs in a class over at the University on this issue (and others surrounding the topic of moral status of human beings) wrote a paper that suggested that perhaps this particular ethical hurdle could be sidestepped with the development of better technology–a way to extract one cell from the inner mass in a way that would allow the embryo to continue its development, without disturbing the outer wall of the blastocyst and allowing the missing cell to be replaced. (Of course, it would then need to be implanted in a uterus in order to do so, which introduces some complicated considerations, but the current quandary would have been sidestepped.)
As Jason points out, one side of the debate focuses on our moral obligations to persons already among us, and one side on our moral obligation to persons potentially among us. It seems to me that both sides say something powerful–there are indeed moral obligations to both groups. What those obligations are in each case is the difficult thing to parse out. Do we in some way owe every human embryo what it requires in order to develop into a human adult? I’m not sure that this is the case. To say yes to this means I spent 6 years sinning by taking the pill–classic Catholic stance, right? However, I clearly owe it to Clare to provide what she requires in order to develop as optimally as possible (boy will I enjoy that first beer after she finally decides to release me from this 9-month Lenten discipline). What’s the difference?
OKay, I wrote way more than I meant to and I hope most of it wasn’t nonsense. POssibly more intelligent things will follow tomorrow.
Kudos for tackling the topic. You’ve got some cojones.
By Mike the EyeGuy on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Here is a slightly dated, though still relevant article from First Things.
By Tracy on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
I guess we can talk about it on Saturday.
By Scott on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
This is great stuff. I’m working on putting my thoughts together into something concise. Please, continue to weigh in.
What is the moral obligation to an embryo over and above the currently living?
Can we support In Vitro Fertilization and not support stem cell research?
By JTB on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
here are a couple of representative articles that you should be able to find in the Baylor library. Kass opposes and Peters supports stem cell research. The Peters article should (if I remember right) also give a thorough and succinct overview of the science involved.
Leon Kass, “Life, liberty, and the defense of human dignity: the challenge of bioethics, “The Moral Meaning of Genetic Technology,” Commentary 108 (1999): 32-38.
Ted Peters, Playing God?; “The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions,” CTNS Bulletin 19 (1999): 3-10.
At the risk of being obnoxious, instead of writing a bunch more gobbledygook I will offer to email you some stuff if you want–I wrote on this for an Ethics comprehensive exam, and also have some more bibliographic info and maybe a short paper. Let me know if you want that stuff (as I will not assume that you do).
By Scott on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
I would love it. The title of this series I am doing is “Redeeming Issues.” I’m trying to get my hands on as much stuff that strays from political hyperbole as possible.
Please ship it my way: sfree96@yahoo.com
By Jason Bybee on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
JTB, I’d love to get a copy of your stuff, too, if you don’t mind. jason@mayfair.org
By Jeff on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
Just finished a great book by Kazuo Ishiguro (author of The Remains of the Day) entitled Never Let Me Go.
It deals with bioethics in an indirect fashion - it’s a novel about the human condition in a fictional setting. A powerful, moving read. Thought-provoking as well.
Let me give you some predictions (none of which require must prognostic capability) of the inevitable:
Gay marriage will ultimately and probably shortly be accepted in the US
Abortion will continue to be legal
Cloning of humans will be legal within 20 years
This is where technology and our society are headed. I’m not commenting on the morality of any of these, but am just saying this is what is going to happen.
It seems to be the question will be how do believers live in a world with these practices? Where is the cutting edge of Christlikeness in this milieu?
My position would be that our schools and best thinkers need to rapidly get over intelligent design and the question of evolution and get seriously about the work of staking out a position on what it means to be human; what constitutes personhood and what place, if any, there is for the concept of the soul.
Jeff.
By Scott on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I’m right with you on those predictions.
I would love to suss out your penultimate paragraph. I believe you are correct in where we need to concern ourselves.
Next week, I’m going to tackle intelligent design. It seems, to me, that apologetics and the field has become a sort of navel-gazing art form that contributes little to the advancement of the kingdom.
But I could be wrong.
I covet your wisdom.
By Jeff on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
While I recognize that we have to take “forward leaning” positions on policy in a democratic society (i.e., addressing what *should* be rather than what *is*), it seems interesting that Jesus did not really do this. Instead he focuses on the immediate issues in front of him. (Another reference here to Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexuals and its hermeneutic of anthopologic revelation).
Using Webb’s model, let’s take the “opposite” case and consider as a “control” for comparison to the stem cell question.
Capital punishment is a case where social “conservatives” are generally in favor of the current status quo practice and liberals are contra. Liberals argue it is inhumane, uncivil, immoral and ineffective. Liberals (religious or not) continue to legally and political oppose the well-established practice and “fight city hall” with little evidence of the tide turning (even with a nod to the decision by the Supreme Court this week on lethal injectiion).
The question at issue is *where should the Christian be* on this issue - politically and legally? Interestingly, this “pro-life” position hasn’t garnered the support of much of evangelicalism (a favorable nod here to our Catholic brethren for being on the *right* side of the issue IMHO). And most anti-capital punishment Christians are content to allow legal processes and challenges to percolate through the system.
On cloning and stem cell research, however, the evangelical right has galvanized in a nearly monolithically contra position. All pistons - rhetorical, political, legal - are firing in opposition to any forward movement on the front.
I think ultimately our answer to both of these moral questions must be reconciled (and along the way the euthanasia, abortion and perhaps even birth control issues are swept up) with our views on (1) personhood and (2) the legitimate reach of humanity in control over other persons.
Where is God leading humanity? Toward greater equality, justice and freedom. We’ve seen it with the gender issue and the race issue - both very divisive in their time along religious lines. Next up is the issue of homosexuality, then on to cloning, genetically modified humans, “custom built” children, etc.
The concern I have is that I think evangelicalism kind of gave up on this issue unknowingly when we departed from our Catholic brethren on the birth control issue. We stepped across what seemed a minor differentiation on the pathway to increased individualism and self-determination, but inadvertently crossed a huge chasm on that path that separated the “can” from the “should” vis a vis technology. Some would argue that this, too, was only incremental to the advent of antibiotics and vaccination, but I think the gap between the somatic and germ is the critical divide - stretching our influence from our (rightful (http://runtowin.blogspot.com/2006/06/your-sphere-of-influence.html)?) sphere of immediate self-influence into the far-flung future.
Since that time, euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, IVF have emerged as common practices (acknowledged or conducted in secret) and the natural evolution of these practices is improved genetic engineering, cloning, etc.
It seems to me that we have sacrificed the internal consistency of our position long ago and are left with only fideistic claims that will, surely, ultimately, fall on deaf ears in our modern society.
Unrestricted personal freedom - no matter how much governmental oppression it requires - is our destiny. It is a Dickian dystopia approaching quickly where personhood will become a highly subjective classification unless moral voices can somehow reverse the trend of personal choice and the veneration of human life (as opposed to its sanctity).
Christians, to be “successful” with issues like abortion, stem cell research, GMH, cloning, etc. are going to have to go back to the drawing board and develop a consistent position on human life (biology), personhood (theology) and freedom (policy). Otherwise, little by little, we will continue to lose ground on what I believe to be a “high view” of humanity.
By Scott on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I’m shaken by these thoughts. I’ve long said that societies are, by nature, progressive. In other words, you ain’t getting the cat back into the bag. It seems that you say that now that the biological and technological advances are proceeding down such a path, the end result is unavoidable.
How do even begin to go back to the drawing board?
By Jeff on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
I think the answer has to be in shaping the final forms of the inevitable. Just as the Catholic church isn’t going to eradicate condoms, we aren’t going to eradicate abortion (whose biblical antecedent, exposure, our Christian forbears denounced, too) or, ultimately, stem cell research. So, like our Catholic brethren, we must focus our energy and effort on “redeeming” society in those areas that would reduce the need for the thing we are opposed to.
Think about it: would slavery have ended had there not been a segment of society that had figured out how to build an economy without it? Would the issue have even been discussed a hundred years earlier when no one could imagine a functional economy without it?
I’m pretty confident that we will come up with less costly, more productive, more precise methods than human embryonic stem cell research. Christian scientists and researchers should be on the cutting edge of asking those questions and developing those alternatives - just as Christians working in law enforcement and social policy should be finding ways to prevent crime and ensure racial equality in the justice system to make capital punishment a moot issue. Just as Christian social workers and families should be working to prevent and compassionately deal with teenage and unplanned pregnancies.
Or we could spend all our collective energy litigating on evolution, school prayer and gay marriage - and electing “pro-life” Republican candidates (who continue to see abortion rates increase under their administrations unlike the “pro-choice” Democratic administrations) in the fruitless hope of reversing a fait accompli.
By Scott on Jun 13, 2006 | Reply
You write: “Or we could spend all our collective energy litigating on evolution, school prayer and gay marriage - and electing “pro-life” Republican candidates (who continue to see abortion rates increase under their administrations unlike the “pro-choice” Democratic administrations) in the fruitless hope of reversing a fait accompli.”
That’s why I like the platform of Democrats For Life. It acknowledges the inevitability of abortion and seeks to lower the frequency.
By Lachen on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
I’m sick about that last comment - as though this has anything to do with politics. Politics has become a religion unto itself for too many of us who love the Lord. And sadly, replaces God far too often in our rationales. It sickens me - more and more lately. I hate politics from the pulpit. More than I despise preaching from the political podium, and that makes me sick, too.
Sorry for the tangent - I am deeply frustrated to the point of heartbreak at how easily we warp Christianity to fit our political or social leanings. I am guilty, too. Romans convicted me and my eyes are lately opened to it all around me. I reject it entirely. Whoa… how did I not see this before? It’s everywhere.
Some of the things that spring to mind here are:
Do any of us honestly see Jesus advocating the destruction of one human soul for the benefit of another as in embryonic cell research and cell transfer? If not, how can we justify any of it against the litmus test of Jesus?
Are we not all created in God’s image and worthy of equal conideration and respect? Who gives us sovereignty over these embryos - God or self?
just thoughts.
By Scott on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
Don’t mean to make you sick but Jeff is right. The sad reality is that abortion is legal. I can kick against the goads and be futile or I can be involved in trying to lower the number of people who seek that out as an option. Democrats for Life are trying to do something.
I am pro-life and believe that all God’s children have the right to life. It’s not about “warping Christianity to fit my political or social leanings.” It’s about being salt and light in a darkened, flavorless world.
To bury our head in the sand and say that it has nothing to do with politics is to mute our voices and firmly entrench ourselves in ineffectual naval-gazing.
“Do any of us honestly see Jesus advocating the destruction of one human soul for the benefit of another as in embryonic cell research and cell transfer? If not, how can we justify any of it against the litmus test of Jesus?”
First of all, I’ve never said that I support stem-cell research. Secondly, I could ask these same questions about capital punishment and a pointless war in Iraq.
By Jeff on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
Good counterpoints, Scott. Clearly, most evangelical Christians see things as Lachen does - as a black-and-white issue of life v. death when it comes to embryonic stem cell research or abortion. But don’t see how that same logic challenges capital punishment and “pre-emptive war” as morally acceptable choices. All because we don’t understand consistently our position on personhood and freedom.
By Lachen on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
I’m tempted to voice deep frustration, but won’t. I’ll chalk it up to sadly typical misunderstanding and the reactions stemming therefrom. And just resign myself that there seem inevitably to be some places where Christians just don’t understand one another at basic levels.
Scott, gotta disagree in lots of places. Firstly, I shared thoughts (as you invited us to) that occured to me as I read what was being written here, not accusations toward you or anyone else, except where my thoughts apply to us all, including myself. Second, I remain sickened by politics being given such a pedestal in any discussion about righteousness and Biblical mandates of right and wrong, by any of us who have relationships Jesus. I am increasingly disheartened by this so as I open my heart fully about it and let God just sandblast away. My own past beliefs concerning adherence, loyalty, or subscription to a belief of the power or purpose of any one political structure to be “right” have been just totally unGodly. Politics has really become a pungent false idol in modern, post-modern, traditional, conservative, and emergent Christianity. The only difference between us Christians some days seems to be which specific political idol we are choosing to set on the stand before us and worship. I am as sick of Republican nonsense as Democratic nonsense. I refuse to even declare myself in elections these days beyond the likes of, “human”, or “Christian who loves God and votes according to that love”. Anything else is a man-made political concoction designed to pidgeonhole people and lull them into false senses of security about what side of the political aisle has the monopoly on “right”.
Sorry - man this got long. I am frustrated and grouchy about it. Politics is so negatively infecting way too many churches, including my own. I hate it and rebel against it. The minute my pastor tells me how he is voting or how I should vote, we have wandered way off the reservation and I will bail. (again, not accusations - please hear this from my heart, not specifically about because you happen to be a pastor, but as a condition of the church we BOTH belong to as people)
I am overstating, maybe. Admittedly, I am grouchy about politics in general. There is such power there to divide and to distract from truth. I hate that we are so ego-driven and sure of our methodolody to achieve God’s plan for us and for this world. When something can be used so fervently as a weapon to divide the church, God’s people, and assert that IT best represents God’s will - that it is “right” when it is only an opinion - it makes the hairs on my neck instantly prickle. God represents Himself quite clearly. When we assert the brilliance of our own ideas (again, not accusations, just thoughts and I include myself in ALL of this), we just tend to make murky what is otherwise Biblically clarion. And lead ourselves astray from focusing on truth towards focusing on the packaging. THAT is what I take issue with. THAT is what I think leads to false idol worship and cultic phenomena.
There exists truth. And then there exists our understandings of it and positions in response to it. We all seem to share the same truth. It is our responses to God that differ so very, very much.
I’m just kind of done battling over the humanity of it - which is why I rebel SO much over politics being equated to anything remotely resembling faith and taking up our cross and following Him. I’d rather focus on the will of God being done on earth as it is in heaven and not settle for anything less. Politics is an inevitable part of that, but by NO means should be the advocated, lauded solution to ANY of it. Perhaps that it a utopian view, but then - if the utmost goal is God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven - we are talking about utopia, aren’t we?
Lastly, Jeff and Scott, you’ll notice that I took no position on stem cell research whatsoever even though I was labelled “black and white”. SCR, in my heart, is honestly something I have yet to hear the panultimately compelling biomedical or Bibilcal ethics argument which seals my position or understanding of a perfect solution to the SCR question of what Jesus tells us. Beyond what he actually DOES tell us. All life is created in His image. It has nothing to do, in my mind, with freedom or personhood, but obedience to God. Maybe those can be intertwined, and perhaps inexoribly so - but I see them as individual issues. If all life is created in God’s image, I ask again, “Do any of us honestly see Jesus advocating the destruction of one human soul for the benefit of another as in embryonic cell research and cell transfer? If not, how can we justify any of it against the litmus test of Jesus?”
Sorry for the complete lack of brevity.
By Tracy3906 on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
Lachen, I guess you have come in late to the discussion so I’ll just update you to this: Scott hasn’t advocated for or against Stem Cell Research. Not in his personal life, at church, or on here. His whole discussion is how do we as CHRISTIANS look at these issues and what are the basics of the topic so we can know a little bit out what the world is talking about. His whole approach to this topic and this series is about being in the world and not of the world.
What is refreshing in Scott’s message is how passionate and sincere he is in laying down political bias. As you know, for so long he was a died in the wool Republican. And he will confess and has repented, that he let his GOPness predetermine his views as a Christian. Then he read that “Mere Discipleship” book and began this rollercoaster that he is now full swing into about being Christian in the world and how we in faith respond socially to others, namely, the least of these.
And I am so thrilled to see this sandblasting in your heart and how this new attitude of yours is going to play out. I’ll be very curious to see if and how it will impact your views on immigration and islam.
And about this whole preaching politics from the pulpit. I heed the warning and am extremely sensitive to politics coming from the pulpit. Woe be to the person who preaches politics in a church that I am in. Scott doesn’t do that. Unless telling people to love your enemies, feed the hungry, and care for the poor and tired are political. On his blog? It bleeds politics. And that’s OK by me. Just don’t preach it at church.
By Jeff on Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
Lachen -
You said,
“you’ll notice that I took no position on stem cell research whatsoever even though I was labelled “black and white””
But you also said (twice):
“Do any of us honestly see Jesus advocating the destruction of one human soul for the benefit of another as in embryonic cell research and cell transfer? If not, how can we justify any of it against the litmus test of Jesus?”
My “black and white” comment was about the perspective you offered in your question above - you have missed your own assumption that most supporters of stem cell research don’t agree with you on (I don’t, at this point, by the way, support stem cell research and would vote against it if it came to a vote): is that embryo a person?
Clearly, you think it is (i.e., “the destruction of one human soul”). As do I. My point is that to us, because of that unstated assumption, we see it “black and white” - Jesus wouldn’t advocate the killing of one human being (especially a helpless one) for the benefit of another. But those who support stem cell research, in my experience at least. do not consider that embryo a person. So when you ask your question to them, “Would Jesus advocate the destruction of one human soul” - they answer “no”, but continue to hold their positions on stem cell research and abortion and perhaps even euthanasia.
As you say, “all life is created in the image of God” - but what constitutes “created”? The Catholics would argue that sperm and egg meet the criteria - and therefore birth control is destructive. You imply that post-conception constitutes this creation - others disagree.
As I’ve said several times now, the issue is therefore personhood, not biblical interpretation.
By Lachen on Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Tracy, THANK YOU.
I just wouldn’t be me if I wasn’t late to the party - and I didn’t pick up that Scott had a position on this or not, I was just sharing my own thoughts (and lack of defined position) as they occurred to me. Scott and I have a lot in common in NOT adocating or not NOT advocating stem cell research/development/embrace. I don’t have the benefit of seeing/experiencing Scott The Pastor in church, only the Scott I see here on his blog and through you. I am definitely handicapped. But then, so are all those who know me only in two dimensions. We’ll just have to deal with the imperfections of this medium as best we can.
You know what is neat - I was able to sit down and pray about this after dinner and was able to isolate what got my blood up so much about this discussion. It is EGO vs humilty, vs meekness. Mine, Scotts, and others. Just the thought of being disdained because I tend to send up my voice from a place others believe they have seen and moved on from. As though my journey with Christ is somehow inferior because I began and am currently travelling quite a distance away, in some crux manifestations of the same truth we share, from where I perceive Scott and the majority of those who participate here on his blog to be. Essentially, though we are all salt - I am the Australian pink version, and Scott tends to be the Sicilian red version. Or something like that. It’s a metaphor… roll with it.
Personally, though I was blessed with vibrant heart-steeped, cell-based ministry Christian parents and generational relationships with the Lord in my family and came to know Jesus at seven, I think I was the pendulum balancer for Scott’s experience as a Christian, as he has described it here. My parents were hippies, peaceniks, thought the political sun and moon set on Jesse Jackson (they don’t think that NOW, thank God), and travelled the country with the Freedom Revelation Gospel Choir. I was raised in the most liberal fringes of the political spectrum and “Love God and Love Your Neighbor, Love Being a Democrat” was the mantra come election time.
I rebelled from that altogether in late high school. And on a missionary trip to Mexico, God just simply revealed to me (in Romans) that mine was a path that needed to become utterly ROOTED in scripture and nothing else. I refused to participate in ANY politics in college, studying and graduating with a religious studies degree and finally a sense of honor and righteousness about daring to express my Christian faith out loud, politically.
I believe that a lot of the ideology and theology that passes for modern applied koinonia or agape, essentially the methodology we use to be the salt of the earth, is actually spiritual and moral weakness and cheapens the love that Jesus teaches. That’s what I rebel against.
But, as you know, I have been challenged recently that my own salt can sting at times (when I throw it at people, for example) and cause those to whom it is supposed to bring a message of hope, a message of grit and even callousness. So I am re-examining, again, everything I know, believe, and stand for against the Bible seeking a new crop of errors. I do this way too often and not often enough. And what is my extrapolation alone is falling by the wayside and staying there. (my views on Islam and illegal immigration continue to be Sciptural to my utmost understanding, and have not changed. I am open to God doing whatever He wants to with my life, but so far - I am finding renewed vigor in some areas, these among them, while still others have radically shifted).
I am glad to have this clarification about you, Scott, from your wife, whom I dearly love. I still have a deep-seeded sense of not being understood from a position of the heart, but rather judged as someone whose positions are in his rear view mirrors because he has moved on from them. And therefore, deemed to be behind or beneath him? That is my sense sometimes. But I so appreciate the inside track and will hopefully be able to undstand Scott better from here on in. Interestingly, we both believe we have been where the other is in some sense. We are probably very, VERY alike, which I think leads me to not be able to hold my tongue when I read, “Sorry, Lachen, but Jeff is right.” Um really? Says who, GOD?
And there I go…
(I am sorry for the length of this conversation, Scott! I enjoy chatting with your wife, and after all, we do have two X chromosomes… but I do have your email, Tracy, and we can pick this up later!)
By Scott on Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Lachen, fair enough. I do see myself as having moved on from my entrenched Republican politics. But I have not forsaken that for a place in the Democrat fold, either. The more I study, the more I realize that Jesus was advocating a Kingdom that transcends those of the earth.
My ultimate desire is to be more like Christ. That cannot be contained in any political party. And ultimately, my allegiance to the things of this nation are, at this point in my life, pretty meager.
I do struggle with many of the old positions, GOP endorsed, that I held that I now recognize as hatred on my part. If my view is kingdom oriented rather than nation oriented I view things differently. I don’t mean to be impatient with you.
But, understand this, your initial response was that my comment sickened you. I took that as a moral judgment.
I do not have this all figured out. The more I fall in love with Jesus, the less I understand Him and the harder it is to fully live what He said.
In regards to Stem Cell Research, I do believe that Jeff is right. We have to work in the present day reality. I’m presenting this as a class Sunday night and feel that I owe it to my congregation to approach everything with an open mind. Ultimately, the stem of progress will be a difficult, if not impossible, one to turn back.
The question remains then: how do I develop and advocate a consistent ethic of human life that values all people and embodies the presence of Christ in my life?
I’ll be more patient as you weigh in.
By Lachen on Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Scott, Jeff, Tracy, and those following along for the heck of it…
I am thrilled with where this discussion is going. Finally. Because I was about ready to vote myself off of this island for sheer inability to adequately communicate either on the receiving or giving end of this conversation. The lovely internet makes me crazy sometimes for sheer limitations toward this end. Although, admittedly, the words I tend to choose are not milqetoast and I should be a little more prepared for ruffled feathers when I say things like “sickened”.
I am sorry that was I said/wrote offended you, Scott, and kind of sent you on the defensive. I was sickened because of the mere mention of politics in a discussion of LIFE, which, to me, has always been very clarion. Politics is, as you’re discovering, a raw “grouchy” button in my life right now. I find it an appallingly omnipresent distraction, internationally and especially among the heavenbound, from the real purpose and the real power to affect hearts and lives and souls and the future - micro and macro.
And because you asked about stem cell research, while I sit here in utter recognition that the bioethical debate talking points I understand could find shelter in the shade of snow pea compared to what I DON’T know about this topic, SCR is inexoribly tied to abortion in my mind. And my position with abortion is passionate, seeking Jesus totally, and wanting to not take any step, vote, speak any word, or take any action which detours me from acknowledging the Biblical truth about, as Jeff put it, “personhood”. If Jesus is to be believed, that “before you were conceived, I knew you”, doesn’t that apply to SCR, slective reduction, abortion and other means of devaluing life prior to birth?
It was an honest heart that was seeking an answer to that question - not to goad anyone or deliberately be pepper in anyone’s pie.
And I TOTALLY misunderstood Jeff entirely (Jeff, this is to you too - hope you’re reading) - I took his “personhood” argument to be relating to the person in recipt of the stem cells/research/or benefit or the person making the ethical decision concerning them, not the person whose stem cells are harvested for whatever purposes. You’re right and he’s right. If people are not people from prior to physical conception, this argument becomes real easy, real quickly. But if we do really want to seek after God and believe that He is right - that souls and people are intact before we can relate to them and decide their worth relative to our own, how can we honestly look at stem cell research as being different from abortion. The manifestations of sin are different, but the sin is the same IF we take God’s word for the worth of a human being created in His image from the moment He breathed life into us, which I Biblically believe takes place long before the sperm meet the egg - but certainly at that point, personhood is established.
It comes down to, for me, scales. Whose scales are we using to weigh the value of a human life?
And there is a footnote - about 3 or 4 years ago, I was up late watching Fox News (stop it) and there was a fascinating debate on the Hannity and Colmes show (I think) with AMAZING commentary from a stem cell expert detailing the new procedures that all but alleviate entirely the need for new stem cell harvesting. I watched, aghast, because I was sure this was bunk - but he was actually BACKED UP by the opposing ethicist, whose chief complain about the new procedures was economically based.
I’ll see if I can’t track that down. Really impacted my thoughts at the time.
By Jeff on Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Lachen -
Thanks for the reply and the thoughts. I guess I would still ask how you come to the conclusion - with no room for doubt or debate - that an embryo is a human life? Remember, the folks who are pro-abortion and pro-SCR probably don’t believe it’s a human life - they consider themselves as “pro-life” as you - they just don’t define an embryo (in the case of stem cell research) or the fetus (in the case of later-term abortion) as having yet become a human life.
So on what basis do you make your stand? You say “biblically”, but what does that mean? Sure, God “knit [David] together in [his] mother’s womb”, but is that basis enough to reach the conclusion that pregnancy is the point of personhood? Adam was a fully-formed adult (presumably) when God “breathed life” into him.
C. S. Lewis once pointed out, when writing about his theory of The Tao, that every society has had a definition of murder and considered it evil. But there have been a wide variety of definitions. In some cultures, euthanasia, abandonment and exposure were not considered “murder” because those persons (as we might define them) weren’t considered “viable” any more. Our society is now grappling with these issues again. In the past, Christians have been able to voice advocacy for what constituted a human person. I think we have lost some of that ability in modern culture and have reverted to simply “proof-texting”, which, like it or not, simply has no commerce in secular society - especially when a lot of Christians disagree on the topic as well.
Finally, if we can’t establish a common, firm basis for personhood, how should the church respond to a society that will advocate personhood with limitations we don’t agree with? I think the answer I mentioned earlier is still the most Christlike: to serve those in need in such a way as to demonstrate our love, our ethic of life and our willingness to live sacrificially to reduce the need for the behavior we believe to be immoral.
Based on that last, folks who start, staff, support and encourage crisis pregnancy centers have done more for the name of Christ and for unborn children than all the “pro-life” Republican politicians stacked end-to-end!
By Lachen on Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Hey Jeff,
A: I am not a Cylon. Just so we clear that up.
B: Given = politics is fairly ridiculous. Fairly often. We agree humongously. BUT… I do have compassion for anyone who loves life enough to make a stand in the best way they can imagine or endeavor. If that means becoming a politician and staking a pro-life stance, I support them as much as that is not the road I may personally advocate - it is one human being’s expression of a truth and a mission I share. As much as I am disillusioned with politics in general and specifically, I am more in love with God through others. And I do see that there are some wonderful human beings trying to make a difference in the political arena. I don’t hate or condemn that.
I just think the energy of Christians is best spent in some of the ways we’re choosing to spend it.
C: Ok, your core question: “how you come to the conclusion - with no room for doubt or debate - that an embryo is a human life?”
It has never occured to me that life is anything but God’s creation alone, and that we are formed as human beings in His image before we ever draw a breath on this earth. I guess I am kind of handicapped by an incapability of even seeing that there is a viable perspective that is worthy of countering that position. God trumps all for me, and I stand in defiance of opposing views - and therefore habe not, in all honesty, given them much the time of day.
Viability, sentience, health as being the “scientific” definitions of personhood or life - all nonsense. God creates life before any of those peripheral manners of classifying it come into play.
Sorry - I am anything but wishy-washy in my positions.
Ours is an inheritance of heaven, not an eternal binding to this earth or its secular, human standards of what constitutes personhood. Certainly our physical bodies are not the limit of life, since our bodies are not what Jesus came to save, but our souls, and our souls exist before and after life, if we listen to the Bible speak to this issue. So, if SOUL = PERSONHOOD and bodies are secondary indicators, when does a soul begin to live and when does it die?
That is where I look again to God - to Scripture - and find confirmation all over the place, from Genesis to Jeremiah to Psalms to Philipians.
I am sure you know the sources, too. I find more Biblical evidence for life beginning not only AT conception, but prior to conception. for I am convinced that LIFE as a concept which applies to each and every one of us, belongs to God alone. I believe Him when He tells us that He knew each one of us prior to us even being conceived - that all the days of our lives are of His design and conception prior to a physical conception of human endeavor. I believe that abortion, stem cell research and any other attempt to interrupt the process of life maturing is utterly contrary to what God teaches us about honoring life and honoring GOD, as each of us is created in His image.
When we begin debating from a human perspective, “well, what about…” and insert our specific, evolved, and astute human ponderings about zygotes, embroys, stem cells, viability, etc. I find that sometimes interesting, most times maddening, but not at all compelling. None of it holds a candle in my heart and mind - to the fact that we have no authority, NONE, to assert our right to usurp what God has already orchestrated and crafted as our lives. The spark of life in each one of us begins long before sperm and egg meet, according to my understanding of the Bible’s teaching and my walk with the Lord.
Long before we are conceived in the womb, God creates in us, life. Certainly the physical maturity of us as the defining constitution of life is challenged all over the Bible, including the reference you pen above about God breathing life into a fully grown Adam. Certainly those who would advocate that life does not begin until viability would have some pretty tangled arguments in this case?
Ultimately, I find myself echoing scripture - life is God’s alone. He is the author of life and death - not we. (Deuteronomy 32:39). Anything I do to try to hedge that bet risks my own ability to be a “little Christian” and embody the goal we all share as Christians.
Hopefully, that answers your question at least a little bit about the place my heart resides on this one.
http://jesuschristsavior.net/prolife.html (something I have bookmarked and seems to apply to this discussion)
By Eric on Jun 16, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I just came across your website and saw your need for stem cell info. The following link should connect you with a sermon/teaching by Patrick Mead at Rochester C of C (Michigan) from 2004. Patrick, being both a preacher and scientist,(doctoral degrees in a couple science fields that I can’t remember nor could I pronounce if printed in front of me!)would be a great resource on this subject. I remember on the night he presented it that he had a PP presentation that went along with it.
http://rccaudio.christianwitness.us/rgen.php?/Content/rcc/08112004.rm
Hope this helps,
Eric
By Scott on Jun 16, 2006 | Reply
Eric, thanks for the link. I’ll give it a listen.
Lachen, I agree that politics is maddening (plus a whole lot of fun for me). If you read my series on how I got to where I am you will see that conclusion reached over and over. But it is the world in which we live. We have to meet people where they are and help them see the value of Kingdom living over above nation and politics. It is the vernacular of our age. Hence, the title of “Redeeming Issues.” My intent is to redeem these discussions from the political sphere and posit them with a Kingdom perspective. I can’t escape the political language of Jesus as well.
To me, that involves wrestling with hard questions. If life begins before conception then what about IVF? What about birth control? If life is precious in the womb what about outside of it? How do we reconcile war and capital punishment? Where is the consistent ethic of human life? That involves, again, living as salt and light in a darkened, flavorless world. I share your pro-life stance. Again, I’ll go back to my original comment that sparked this thread of the conversation. http://www.democratsforlife.org/ are seeking to lower abortion rates 95 percent in 10 years. I can get behind that and hope that people of all political affiliations will at least consider what they have to say.
By Jeff on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
Lachen -
I understand your positions, I think. However, most of our previous dialogue came about because you appeared to be a little upset that I’d implied (or you’d inferred from my comments) that you were “black-and-white” on the issue and that you were, in that sense, like a lot of the evangelical Christians who really can’t establish a meaningful debate with those who disagree with them because they (the evangelical Christians) place their positions “beyond reason and argument” into the realm of the fideistic.
To wit, you wrote:
“Jeff and Scott, you’ll notice that I took no position on stem cell research whatsoever even though I was labelled “black and white”. SCR, in my heart, is honestly something I have yet to hear the panultimately compelling biomedical or Bibilcal ethics argument which seals my position or understanding of a perfect solution to the SCR question of what Jesus tells us.”
So we entered into discussing the various arguments, pro and con, on the basis of the assumption that all of us were willing to consider the positions and were open, based on reason and discussion to changing our minds about the positions, about viewpoint and interpretations of Scripture - since I’m assuming we all read the same texts and still come away with different meanings - which would indicate that Scripture isn’t as clear on these issues as we sometimes believe.
But then you wrote,
“I guess I am kind of handicapped by an incapability of even seeing that there is a viable perspective that is worthy of countering that position.”
And,
“Sorry - I am anything but wishy-washy in my positions.”
Which is fine by me - except that you can’t really complain to folks who say you see the issues in “black-and-white”.
Further, as Scott notes above, based on your position, I assume you are against birth control, in vitro fertilization and the death penalty, right?
But also, what about life-saving medical technology and procedures? If life is clearly and unambiguously the realm of God and God alone, can we intervene to prevent death with the “nonsense” of “viability”, “sentience”, and “human wisdom”?
As you wrote, we should avoid…
“any other attempt to interrupt the process of life maturing”
Just note that I’m not criticizing where you stand, just trying to identify it and indicate that even the “clarion” position of Scripture is often “clarion” only after being pretty heavily filtered by cultural and personal interpretive frameworks that we are often ourselves not even aware of.
Peace.