Therapeutic vs. Reproductive Research

One of the ironies in the stem cell debate is that there is a camp of scientists and ethicists who are trying to strike a kind of middle ground in which embryonic stem cells are allowed to be cloned or created for research, but only for what is called therapeutic purposes and not for reproductive purposes. (This story makes note of that.) In short, they believe cloning and ESC research should be allowed only to allow the product to be destroyed and the stem cells or organs harvested. It would be much worse, apparently, if infertile couples cloned an embryo to raise it and care for it as a human being.

The poet and ethicist J. Bottum has noted that this runs contrary to our moral intuitions and leads to a scientific culture reminiscent of our worst dystopias. At least, he argues, if we allow cloning and ESC research, let us do so for reasons much more humane than destruction and research. Doubtless the defenders of this odd position point out that the destruction and research is for potential future benefit. But I cannot come up with another situation in which we as a culture allow the wholesale slaughter and destruction of a certain class of humans for the potential future benefit of a few.

We must resist the tendency our scientific culture has to euphemize its way out of moral conundrums. If we beat down our moral intuitions for too long, they may be very hard to regain indeed.

Pragmatism, Behavior and Religion

Here is another study concerning America’s youth and their attitudes toward religion and spirituality.

I don’t “follow” these kinds of studies closely like may pastors and culture watchers do, but when I run across them some of their findings fascinate me. I find that there are a lot of pastoral and missiological implications contained in their findings.

The primary point of this study is that Gen Y likes choice in religion. Like their iPods, they want to be able to control their intake of religion. But I want to focus on one of the last lines in the Washington Times article:

However, although many of these young Americans worry about getting good grades and finding work after school, their biggest concern is the solidly "moral" issue of nonmarital sex -- 35 percent of Generation Y members are "very worried" about "getting a sexually transmitted disease," the study noted.

Don’t ask me why “moral” is in quotes in the article-sexuality is a pretty standard moral issue.

Anyway, some might read this and think it is a good thing. “Whatever their motivation, they are avoiding sinful behavior,” is probably what most think. And I don’t necessarily disagree.

What I am worried about is why they are seemingly avoiding extra-marital sex. The motivation reflected in the article is not moral, theological, relational, marital, societal, philosophical, familial, etc….it is raw and unashamedly pragmatic. According to the study, young people are not thinking about God or other humans when they have the thought, “extra-marital sex should be avoided.” They are thinking of themselves only.

Sure-maybe they are avoiding destructive and sinful behavior, but the reason they have for behaving that way is corrosive. This kind of pragmatism leaves no room for truth, moral rectitude, societal consequences, or other goods we hold in high esteem. It knows only the base drives of the self.

Why is this so corrosive a view? What sort of effect do you think this kind of view of the world has on religion? You might as well throw out any attempt to be unique or exclusive, and you had better not trod on an individual’s “right” to self-determination. So much for Christ and His Cross. Here is a thought experiment: does the typical youth group appeal to theology or pragmatism when trying to get kids to avoid drugs or extra-marital sex?

I have said before on this blog-pragmatism is a philosophy that corrupts people’s souls and will divide them from the grace and bliss of repentance and forgiveness. If we try to play down to the narcissistic drives of individuals, we will end up corrupting our own faith.

Screwtape Must Be Smiling

And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” Luke 5:31

In speaking these words to the Pharisees, do you think Christ’s point was, “Don’t worry about sin and repentance, Mr. Pharisee, because you are doing alright in that regard. This tax collector, though, is really in need of some work on his soul”? Of course not. Jesus has no such view of Pharisees, and no such view of any human in particular.

What Jesus was trying to put across was that Levi the tax collector felt his need of a physician-he knew he needed forgiveness and grace. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were too sure of their own righteousness to partake in the infinite mercy and forgiveness of the divine physician.

One of the most dangerous positions to be in, spiritually speaking, is when we are comfortable with our own moral standing. When we feel good about ourselves, we are guaranteed to miss the greatest gift of all.

This study done by the National Study of Youth and Religion identifies such a state among America’s youth, and likely in the culture at large. The Study concluded that the closest definition it could come up with for the way youth view their Christianity and spirituality was what they called, “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” Albert Mohler condenses some of the findings with this list of beliefs that comprise Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1."A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."

Many of the details which followed in the report described the typical teenager who could be very articulate and detailed about musicians and Hollywood stars, but who were very fuzzy when it came to spiritual and biblical themes. So it is not that teenagers are inarticulate in general or cannot recall details, it is that they think in generalized and fuzzy ways when it comes to their souls and their religiosity.

Screwtape seems to be winning. Instead of our culture becoming more and more atheistic, it is becoming more spiritual in fuzzier and fuzzier ways. And when people feel comfortable in their individualized and home-spun spirituality, they have absolutely no need of repentance and forgiveness.

There is a lot in Mohler’s article worth reading through and reflecting upon.

Good To Know: "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food"

CNN.com - Has Cookie Monster given up sweets? - Apr 7, 2005

Entertaining article on the new song in Cookie Monster's repertoire. There are not too many articles whos primary content is a Sesame Street Puppet and which quotes Senator Frist.

There is a lot of surrogate parenting going on out there!

Polling Papal Possibilities: Presumptuous Public Postulations

We have become trained to expect to get what we want.

I know polls are ubiquitous in our culture, but we are becoming the kind of society that expects polls to have some kind of sway over our public life. Our political climate, for instance, has given us the sense that if most people want something, they have a decent shot of getting it. If 58% of people think politicians should crack pink Easter eggs on their heads, then we expect that some will actually do it.

The Vatican, however, is a different matter. Reading about the polls done on what Americans and American Catholics would like to see out of the next Papacy strikes me as a collision of worlds. Politicians tend to look to polls for a good deal of their guidance; I am imagining that if the Vatican catches wind of these polls, the response will be, “who cares?” Who cares if most American Catholics, or just most Americans want the next Pope to be more “liberal” on stem cell research or abortion? The Papal stance on such matters is not a function of public opinion-it is a function of truth.

Most of all, the juxtaposition of these kinds of polls and the role of Catholic theology (or any orthodox theology for that matter) is a powerful reminder of how narcissistic we have become. From political push polls to postmodern churches we are trying very hard to make the world around us look like what we think it should be. We desperately want “them” to look like “us”; we really want God to look like me.

And yet the church goes on through wave after wave of cultural change and call after call for change in the church. And that is exactly how it should be. Too many people to count have prophesied the church must change or die-and the church has buried each and every one of them.

The Pope and Moral Clarity

In the coming months, and I suspect, years, there will be much to discuss about the legacy and thought of Pope John Paul II. One of the recent articles that caught my eye is by George Weigel, who as I understand it, is a biographer of the Pope.

One of the things that has struck me about the legacy of the Pope is his unwavering determination to be a religious leader-we did not know of the Pope because he was backing a political cause or because he was a decidedly political figure, but because he was clearly and unashamedly theological and Christian in his public life (very often bearing political consequences). This public Christianity of his frustrated a lot of people for all kinds of reasons. I think Weigel nails one of those reasons:

For if there is only your truth and my truth and neither one of us recognizes a transcendent moral standard (call it "the truth") by which to settle our differences, then either you will impose your power on me or I will impose my power on you; Nietszche, great, mad prophet of the 20th century, got at least that right. Freedom uncoupled from truth, John Paul taught, leads to chaos and thence to new forms of tyranny. For, in the face of chaos (or fear), raw power will inexorably replace persuasion, compromise, and agreement as the coin of the political realm. The false humanism of freedom misconstrued as "I did it my way" inevitably leads to freedom's decay, and then to freedom's self-cannibalization. This was not the soured warning of an antimodern scold; this was the sage counsel of a man who had given his life to freedom's cause from 1939 on.

Moral clarity was a theme of his. He embodied so well the Christian ethic of understanding other religions and views and treating them and their adherents with humane respect and attention while at the same time standing clearly for the truth. What bothers many people is that they can’t stand the notion that there is a moral truth to stand upon; they are betting their farms on it.

Hence the silly label, and sometimes criticism, of “conservative.” Sure he was conservative in the sense that he knew that the truths taught from the very beginning needed to be held to, but to our modern American ears the label carries with it political and moralistic overtones. We really are a shallow bunch.

A Severe Doseage of Humor

LarkNews.com

Some of this is almost too funny! I come from a Pentecostal denomination and the article on the man who prophesies in pirate is priceless.

The Role of Scripture in the Missional Church

I want to offer a couple more reflections on missional church gleaned from The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Guder offers this assertion about what an effective and mission oriented church will look like:

The Holy Spirit shapes God’s people for mission through the continuous encounter with the Scripture. Continuing conversion happens as the community “indwells” Scripture.

He goes on to say:

Rigorous biblical learning must be the missional congregation’s priority. The congregation intentionally commits most of its time together to biblical study….This means that the members are learning to think Christianly; they are learning how to see the world through the eyes of Jesus’ they are becoming biblically literates in order to be effective translators of the gospel into their world. [160]

Here! Here! I know there are several good and faithful ways to handle Scripture in a service and in a congregation (exegetical vs. topical preaching, etc.), but this statement of Guder’s has the ring of truth to me. I have personally stuck with verse-by-verse teaching myself because of this conviction, and I know that there are plenty of faithful pastors and congregations that “indwell” Scripture through a more topical way of preaching and teaching. But I have also noticed that many times when a pastor says they preach topically, what they mean is, “I preach a kind of pop-psychology, self-help gospel.” The point of their preaching is taken more from the latest TV show or book written by an NBA coach than from Scripture.

If we are to be salt and light, if we are to be the kind of witness people recognize as distinct from the outside world, then Scripture must be our focus and our text, no matter our style of pulpit ministry. How else are we, the flock of God, to learn what our God desires of us? If the church does not hold up the standard of Scripture, who will?

As a kind of side note, as I read more on the emergent church I read conflicting views on this kind of thing. At one moment I read where some in the EC believe that because of the pomo rejection of authority, pastors should “step out of the way” and let Scripture do the talking; they promote an exegetical style of teaching and preaching. At the same time and for the same reason, I read that the community should therefore be the primary translator of the Christian life, and that the text of Scripture is just another example of the cultural incarnation of the Spirit in that time and place.

Obviously I think the first option is a life-saver for the emergent church, and the second is a death-knell. Are there any readers out there who see the EC as leaning one way or the other?

More on Human Personhood and Current Bioethics

I ran across this article on the Mars Hill Audio Journal page, and it makes some salient points concerning personhood and how it is/is not defined in our present culture. It quotes Gilbert Meilaender:

“Our personal histories begin in dependence—first within our mother's womb and then as newborns. Often our life ends in the dependence of old age and the loss of capacities we once had. Personhood is not something we 'have' at some point in this history. Rather, as embodied spirits or inspirited bodies, we are persons throughout the whole of that life. One whom we might baptize, one for whom we might still pray, one for whom the Spirit of Christ may still intercede 'with sighs too deep for words' (Rom. 8:26)—such a one cannot be for us less than a person. Dependence is part of the story of a person's life." [2nd edition, page 6]

I think it is an important point to note that personhood is not something that comes and goes with our state. There may be extreme cases on either end where that may be fruitfully debated, but in my opinion, it is debated in far too many cases.

And again:

"Those human beings who permanently lack certain empowering cognitive capacities—as well as all human beings in stages of life where those powers are absent—are simply the weakest and most needy members of our community.”

Their inability to display certain cognitive abilities does not make them less a member of the category “human being.” Very thoughtful article.

You will also want to check out this frightening article at National Review Online.

Defining Humans Down

One of the nasty little realities resulting from the Terri Schaivo case is that we are becoming more and more comfortable with bad definitions of what it means to be human. As I hear commentators and talking heads deal with what is at stake here, Terri is talked about in some pretty unflattering terms.

I have heard the argument made often that she is costing taxpayers a lot of money and should therefore be let go. Money is always a bad way to value human life.

The Daily Show mocked senators who referred to her by her first name on the Senate floor. Are they supposed to de-humanize her in order to make a political point? Isn’t that what many are doing to support her death?

As far as I have been able to tell, one of the fulcrum points for the court rulings has been the “husband’s” claim that Terri did not want to live this way. He first claimed this almost seven years into her current state and has since refused to relinquish legal guardianship to her parents and move on. There is absolutely no way of knowing what Terri really wanted or wants. So now we are down to what one person values in another person’s life. This is not all that different from the “every child a wanted child” abortion and contraception campaign of the 1990s. Apparently unwanted Homo sapiens are not quite human persons.

In my opinion, because we are loosing our understanding of human beings as special creatures among the rest of creation, we are loosing the ethical and moral intuitions that keep us humane.

Christian Carnival 62

Christian Carnival 62 is up at A Nutt's View. There is a load of potentially good reading up for viewing.

Postmodern Culture and the Church Experience

"The Age of Egocasting" by Christine Rosen

In this wonderful article, Christine Rosen takes us through a critical look at our technological culture and the growing ability we have to shape our experiences of the world around us. She takes a close look at the technologies of remote controls, TiVo and the iPod.

The title, “The Age of Egocasting,” is a great thought provoker in and of itself. A large part of Rosen’s thesis is that we have become far to comfortable with shaping our experiences to ourselves rather than experiencing the world as it really is. Deleterious consequences follow for those who are more connected to their technologies than the outside world.

This is one good way of understanding the postmodern world, and more specifically, what is wrong with the pomo culture. Instead of being able-or being “forced”-to listen to a full symphony from beginning to end, for example, we listen to highlights-the bits we like the best-as our CD shuffler or iPod moves us on to the next highlight from the latest country song we like. One of the best ways of understanding what it means to be postmodern is that we are shaping reality instead of reality shaping us-and it looks as if our technologies give us that option on a regular basis.

My concern here is not to rail on technologies, but ask a couple of questions with regard to church experience and relevance. If it is often argued that we need to be relevant to culture, and our culture is growingly egotistical and random, how far should the church follow suit? Is it “allowable” and possibly right to shape a church service experience around random and sound-byte media experiences in order to make people feel “at home” when they come through the doors, only to intend to grab them later on with the deeper world of full-blooded Christianity? Is that approach even tenable? Is it just another form of bait-and-switch marketing?

What if the church decided that this characteristic of pomo culture is harmful to human souls and it decided to stick out like a sore thumb? It seems to me that the basic message of the Gospel is antithetical to egocasting-we need to die to ourselves and encounter a God who demands to be understood on His terms and not ours. Reaching out to culture is not just building bridges people can use to cross over into the Church, but building the right kinds of bridges in the right places and the right kinds of walls in the right places. Now that is a challenge.

Links Sans Context 3/21/05

Vox Apologia X is up at Razor's Kiss. Presuppositional apologetics is a hairy topic, and if I get a chance to today, I will try to add my .02 cents.

There is a growing surge of conservatice philosophers hitting the blogosphere. The latest I know of is Right Reason. Looks to be a great resource!

I have recently become a part of an aggregation of blogging pastors over at Mark D. Roberts.

Steve reviews Boyd's book, God At War. As many of you know, Boyd is a controversial figure in some ways. Steve's review makes the book look very interesting-in fact, it sounds much like a traditional pentecostal/charismatic view on spiritual things.

Jeff at Wheat and Chaff has some thoughts on Judicial Tyrrany. Important subject!

In case you were needing more examples of the convoluted world of political correctness, censorship and the public realm, Crux-Signs has some information for you.

Dory at Wittenberg Gate continues to be part of the vanguard fighting/blogging for Terri's life.

Huntington Apologetics writes on the Brain/Mind topic. Although this can be a philosophically complicated topic, it is an important one indeed!

Terri Schiavo Letter to the Editor

There are many people standing up for Terri Schiavo's life, and I thought I would try to get a letter to the editor published which does that very thing. I was motivated to do this today when I heard of public opinion polls which pretty overwhelmingly favor the removing of the feeding tube-trully horrible! We shall see if anyone chooses to publish it:

The current debate over Terri Schiavo’s life is revealing a deadly paradox which has taken hold of our culture. In a world where technology promises to enrich and lengthen our lives, we are trying to kill a human being who can be saved by those very technologies. We live in a world that, at the same time, touts human potential and debases its nature to nearly nothing. By in large we have defined “person” out of “human person” and we are viewing Terri in terms of economics and convenience instead of the inherent value she holds as a person and the love her parents are dying to show her. Because we are convinced that our value is wrapped up in the things plastic surgery fixes, we are learning to get rid of those cases it can’t.

Through this debate, we must fight to become a culture of life instead of a culture of death. If we are unable to save this life-one that doctor after doctor deems savable-we will be well on the path toward defining life out of our margins. If we cannot draw the line with her life, we will be less and less able to draw the line with other disabilities and conditions we routinely treat today.

Decisions about life and death are never easy, but here we have a woman who, according to her doctors and therapists, should be able to someday eat and speak on her own. This one seems to me to be a decision we should make in favor of life.

The Comprehensive Character of Mission

I am continuing to enjoy The Continuing Conversion of the Church by Darrell L. Guder. The major burden of the book is to look at theology through the lens of evangalism/witness/mission, which is proving to be an extremely fruitful way of talking about the Kingdom of God, God’s revealed Word and the life of the church.

When it comes to the Emergent Church, I have appreciated the emphasis on the life of the church needing to be missional. It is easy for a church to become enrobed in its own establishment and to turn the vast majority of its energy inward instead of outward. There are many voices calling us to refocus ourselves missionally-to see the life of the church as a witness to Christ. Gruder makes this very point.

Although the predominant meaning of witness has to do with oral communication, there is ample reason to understand witness in a much more comprehensive sense, as defining the entire Christian life, both individually and corporately. (55)

He quotes this gem from William Abraham:

…to think of evangelism in terms of mere proclamation fosters the practice of disconnecting evangelism from the life of the local church. (56)

In this spirit, then, Gruder goes on to note the comprehensive character of mission or witness in Scripture. As a partial extraction of his list, he mentions: Witness is theocentric, Witness is Christocentric, Witness is pneumatological, and Witness is historical. Given my own concerns about the direction of the EC, Seeker/Church Growth movements, and other waves in evalgelicalism, I was thrilled to read this list of Gruder’s. Every true revival, restoration or reform of the Church begins exactly where his list begins-with God at its center.

I wonder if any readers have thoughts or experiences to share about missional church? As you may have seen I am part of a team planting a church, and I am praying that we take on a missional character. Any thoughts?

P.S. Guder makes some additional comments about “universals” and history which refine my earlier criticism. I will get to those soon, but I want to see if we can get any discussion flowing on missional church before I do.

The Emergent Church and Fear of Universals

Darrell Guder
Originally uploaded by Phil Steiger.

In my quest to better understand the shape of the latest thoughts and trends in the church world, I picked up what is proving to be an interesting book, The Continuing Conversion of the Church by Darrell L. Guder. I have made my way through about a third of the book so far and would like to comment on a couple of things as I go along.

So far I have greatly appreciated Guder's emphasis on evangelism as a theology, or more accurately, a practical theology, for the church. He encourages us not to loose sight of the evangelistic core of the New Testament. I am looking forward to reading his insights regarding the implications for the church with regard to the shifts in American culture and the shifts in church culture.

My one complaint so far has to do with a passage in which Guder repeats what is becoming a mantra from Emergent Church circles. I do not know myself if Guder 'officially' aligns himself with the EC, but he just might given his take on some of these central issues. The passage I would like to deal with comes at the beginning of his chapter, "God's Mission Is Good News." My first quote here is, I think, essentially true as far as it goes:

This good news about God is rooted in a particular history. Although the modern mind has been affronted by the biblical emphasis upon a particular, specific history as the event of God's self-disclosure, it is essential to the goodness of this news that it be historical....Through the particular encounter of God with Israel, the good news that God is loving and purposeful enters into human history and becomes knowable.

I think such a statement is true in a pretty straightforward kind of way. God revealed Himself to humanity through the people and history of one particular group of people. What Guder says in the next paragraph, however, corrupts his own argument:

Apart from such a particular history, Christianity has no universal message to proclaim. The Bible is not a collection of universal ideas cloaked in a particular history.

I find such an argument not only demonstrably false, but false in such a way as to make the rest of Guder's book pointless if you were to take it seriously. To limit my thoughts to a few nutshells:

To which culture do we limit God's revelation? One might assume that Guder is referring to Israel when he writes "a particular history," but then the New Testament disagrees with that when the Greeks are a crucial part of God's revelation in history. What about the half-Jews of the Diaspora? What about the barbarians, Scythians, slaves or freemen? The point is, although it is hip in Emergent circles to speak of "culture" and how God reveals Himself within a culture, the term "culture" is notoriously difficult to define. If you are going to base a crucial point of an argument on the notion of "culture" then you had better try to define it. I haven't yet read an Emergent author do so. God revealed Himself to Nebuchadnezzar in the OT and I don't think he was Jewish in any discernable way whatsoever.

The very fact that within God's revealed Word there are multiple cultures proves that there are "universal ideas" within His revelation to those cultures. Paul, a Jew, translated the "universal ideas" received in the Jewish Scriptures to Greeks.

What I don't entirely understand is the Emergent fear of "universal ideas." All that phrase simply conveys is that there are things in this world which are the case for all people at all times. Christians, of all people, should cling to the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. If that proposition (gasp!) is not universal, then we of all people are to be pitied the most.

Guder goes on in the same paragraph:

Such universal ideas are merely the product of human imagination and creativity.

Such as that one? Is it universally the case (the case for all universals expressed by humans) that all universals are merely the product of human imagination? If the answer is yes, then Guder has pulled the rug out from his own argument, and if it is no, then Guder has pulled the rug out from under his own argument.

Again, it is hip in Emergent Church circles to assert that things like universals don't exist, but there is simply no getting around them. To assert that they do not is to assert something which you think is true universally.

Additionally, if you agree with Guder's assertion, you have left yourself in an unenviable position. You have no good reason to believe 2+2=4. Each time you get up in the morning, you have no good reason to believe the laws of physics are the same as they were yesterday. You have no good reason to believe that torturing babies for fun and profit is wrong all the time. I, frankly, don't want to be in that position.

It is unfortunate that Guder's book makes this philosophical move. I think there is a lot of intellectual and spiritual stimulation to be had from his project, and I look forward to what else he has in mind.

Links Sans Context 3.15.05

Today's links sans context merits two entries in order not to dilute these.

Vox Apologia IX is up at Razor's Kiss and there are some great posts out there on a wonderful topic. Keep an eye out for a change to the VA aggregator in the near future...

The wonderful Catez at Allthings2All has a fascinating aggregation herself in The Science and Christianity Showcase. The standards are pretty high, scientifically speaking, to post and as a result there are some real gems.

Stanley J. Grenz-With The Lord Today

Stanley J. Grenz-In Memorium

This is a true loss to the evangelical community. Grenz was a prolific author and defender of the faith and he will truly be missed. Though his ideas were sometimes controversial and hotly debated, he was an honest and genuine scholar who loved the Lord, the Church, and Pastors.

May God be with his family and friends through this time of loss.

The Deadly Paradox of Humanism

This week’s VA topic is “Glory to Man In The Highest: The Dangerous Claim of Humanism” and is being hosted at Razor’s Kiss. Thanks again to Joshua for doing so much leg work on apologetics and the blogosphere.

My take on the topic this week is colored by some recent research I have been doing in the area of biotechnology and bioethics. One does not need to be a scientist to follow the ethical and technological implications involved in the ‘biotech century’ and frankly, the possibilities are frightening.

My basic thesis is that due to the excessive value placed on the progress of the human being, a natural result of Humanism, we have reached a place of deadly paradox. This paradox is currently highlighted by the conflicting realities of frighteningly amazing medical advances capable of extending life well beyond a point which used to be considered ‘natural’, and the morally horrific circus which is the Terri Schaivo case.

Humanism has, all at the same time, glorified the potential of the human being and debased its nature altogether. The basic thesis that the human can ‘do whatever is possible’ has reached a point where the inoculation of science is necessary. It is clear that we cannot live forever; enter genetic modification. It is clear we cannot stop disabilities; enter prosthetics and nanotechnology. It is clear we cannot stop disease; enter genetic modification of the environment. And it is exactly because we have learned that we cannot stop the decay of life that we have tried so hard to eliminate nature’s most difficult cases; we have learned to abort and euthanize what we cannot control.

As a result of Humanism, human nature has become infinitely malleable. And here the old saying is true, “Where everything is human nature, nothing is human nature.” We are beginning as a society to decide that the natures we have been given as a divine right are no longer good enough. Athletes need unnatural enhancement; models and actors need ‘plastic’ surgery (what a telling term for plastic careers!). And more and more we are all buying the Faustian bargain.

On the other side of the coin is human nature as defined by Christian tradition and our creation as beings in God’s own image. Our decaying physical bodies are only a portion of our natures, and to be honest, learning how to deal with that decay is an important part of the development of our humanity. Being created in God’s image means, at least in part, that my inner life is crucial, and there is nothing scientific which can modify my spirit. No gene therapy will ever enrich my soul; no nanotechnology will ever make me a better person.

I am more than my genes, my zits and my myopia. I have a nature given by God endued with His image, and destined for eternal communion with Him.

New Resource on Biotechnology

I have stated in the past that in my opinion biotechnology and bioethics will be the new and dominant frontier for a Christian worldview in the 21st century. What Darwinistic Naturalism was to the 20th century, Biotechnology will be to the 21st. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that biotechnology will be/is the form Darwinistic Naturalism will take in our century.

A great new resource along those lines is The Council For Biotehnology Policy. There are a veritable plethora of articles and editorials up on their web site which cover a lot of the science as well as the public policy angles of the current issues. A good introduction to the purpose and mission of the Council is their Manifesto. Here are a few excerpts and some brief comment.

The debates over human cloning have focused our attention on the significance for the human race of what has been called "the biotech century." Biotechnology raises great hopes for technological progress; but it also raises profound moral questions, since it gives us new power over our own nature. It poses in the sharpest form the question: What does it mean to be human?

Bingo. The Naturalism of the 20th century addressed what it means to be human in many ways including the nature of the human species and its relation to animal species on the ‘evolutionary chain’. Biotechnology will allow human nature to be infinitely protean if we are not careful.

We strongly favor work in biotechnology that will lead to cures for diseases and disabilities, and are excited by the promise of stem cells from adult donors and other ethical avenues of research.

Biotechnology is not an unqualified evil.

We therefore seek as an urgent first step a comprehensive ban on all human cloning and inheritable genetic modification.

We also seek legislation to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information, which is private to the individual.

Agreed. I would also love to see this group encompass the question of the genetic modification of plant life and livestock. Such concerns may be out of the scope of their public policy mission, but I believe them to be vital concerns none the less.

Stop by the Manifesto and add your signature in agreement!