Last week the biotech industry announced with great fanfare that they had finally found a way to extract and reproduce stem cells without destroying the human embryo from which they came. While this was great news to some — breaking the barriers placed by the Bush administration — the debate over the commodification of human life is far from over. In recent years the biotechnology industry has been gaining attention in the national media. Some of this news is prompted by advances in technology. However, part of the “progress” is not anything new at all, but instead has simply come about because of a conscious decision to go against long held ethical beliefs regarding research on human embryos (i.e., using the same methods employed in the fertility treatment industry). In a world were the ends are increasingly justifying the means, it should come as no surprise that this moral shift has gone largely unnoticed.* In fact, many people, including the Church to a large degree, lag far behind in terms of addressing the ethical issues that are rapidly rising in our “brave new world.”
The following quote (including an embedded quote in italics) comes from an article in the most recent Covenant magazine, Why the Biotech Future Needs the Church by Dr. C. Ben Mitchell. You can access the full article by downloading the Fall 2006 issue from Covenant Seminary’s website.
Mitchell writes:
…in his most recent book, The Singularity Is Near, inventor Ray Kurzweil argues in more than 650 pages why he thinks humans will one day transcend their biology. Actually, Kurzweil says that humans will reach “the Singularity” in 2045.
The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.
The melding of the human and the machine will mean a disembodied existence in the realm of the nonbiological. That is, humans will merge with computers and the vast network of other computer minds. ‘The principal assumption,’ maintains Kurzweil, ‘underlying the expectation of the Singularity is that non-biological mediums will be able to emulate the richness, subtlety, and depth of human thinking.
The questions these ideas raise for Christians are numerous. How does Kurzweil’s vision correspond or otherwise relate to the Biblical vision of the New Heavens and New Earth and of the resurrected and glorified body? How does the biotech revolution relate to the vision of God to “restore all things to their rightful and more glorious place and function in Jesus Christ” and, derivitively, to the Commission of the Church? How does the biological/technological convergence/revolution relate to the call to “make disciples of Jesus Christ” (i.e. people whose lives conform more and more to the restored image of God’s perfections and righteousness in Jesus Christ)?
The article is intriguing on a number of levels, not the least by its exposure of another gap in evangelical thinking: just as we are waking up to the environmental aspects of our Commission, we continue to be deaf and blind to the technological aspects of our Commission. Of course, we all rejoice at the potentials for evangelism and publication that are afforded by the technological boom; but on a deeper, more profound level the question is, “In what ways does God-given skill in the areas of computer programming, artificial intelligence and biotech research factor into God’s grand, redemptive scheme in Jesus Christ?”
As we debate these questions I think we need to avoid extremely superficial responses of “use those skills to create evangelism software; evangelizing robots; and cross-shaped kidneys,” as well as the extremely post-mil positivism and triumphalism of “let us find and/or create the ‘holiness’ gene and genetically engineer a race of holiness!” Instead, at the outset we ought to understand and admit that God’s Commission in Christ drives us to a work much more profound than “mere evangelism” (the gospel, after all, was first ‘enfleshed’ before it was announced) and one much more refined than gross genetic engineering (after all, Christ as the “seed” of God’s restorative agenda is merely the New Testament’s starting point for understanding and living life as God’s new creations).
* Based on the new news, this post has been edited. The striken text is original; the italic text was added 8/31/06. See this comment for more information.