Biotechnology and the Church
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.
Heady and appropriate topic. How do we common folk act upon this?
I think that a starting point, as the article suggests, is for churches to start teaching Christian ethics in general and bioethics in particular. That’s all I’m really doing with this blog post (would that I could solve it here!).
Church leaders need to be better trained. Right now pastors might be getting questions from members about fertility treatments, but they are ill equipped to handle a question about engineering the sex of your baby; predetermining its hair color; or whether it’s okay to create an embryo for the express purpose of saving another life. At the rate the industry is progressing, these sorts of questions are right around the corner.
However, pastors can already be preaching Biblical anthropology and what it means to be created in God’s image. It is extremely important to understand what it means to be human. So discipleship, I think, is the best way for the common folk like us to engage this issue.
From a vocational standpoint, Christians also ought to be encouraged to pursue careers in these fields so that they can be salt and light.
Don’t worry, I’m not asking you to solve it. I just always look for next steps.
If we say that bioethics is/should be/will be a concern. Then we should address it.
The hessitation I have is that I have a pretty solid biology background, more so than most folks (who aren’t doctors or biologists) and I feel hardly qualified to form a cogent opinion on most aspects of the debate.
I also believe that most churches have folks who feel less than compitent forming their own opinions, let alone be enough to teach the bio or the ethics part of bioethics.
As science races ahead, bioethics to be showing itself to be more of a problem because our culture has spent little time addressing the ethic problem.
more later.
[quote comment="5221"]The hessitation I have is that I have a pretty solid biology background, more so than most folks (who aren’t doctors or biologists) and I feel hardly qualified to form a cogent opinion on most aspects of the debate.
I also believe that most churches have folks who feel less than compitent forming their own opinions, let alone be enough to teach the bio or the ethics part of bioethics.[/quote]
Yeah, beyond the local church level the brightest thinkers will need to be involved in the debate…seminarians, philosphers, ethicists, scientists, biologists, doctors, etc. But your comment serves to hightlight the Church’s mandate to disciple coupled with the call of ALL believers to the Commission (incl. the Cultural Mandate).
That is, beyond the ‘brain power requirements,’ I think that we evangelicals in large part do not take seriously enough the consequences of our Biblical convictions in social and cultural matters. We have a tendency to focus on the inner and private religious experience, while ignoring the task of theologically informed reflection.
Scott did you know that the company who made this announcement made it all up? Yep, their stock was down to $.40/share and they made the announcement that this could be done and it has already proven to be a big fat one. The picture of the undamamged embryo that was released was a file photo of an embryo and other facts have already been disproven. This was a PR ploy to boost their stock price.
Debbie: No, I didn’t know that. I just used that bit as the intro because it was “in the news.” Regardless of the misrepresentation (and I know this isn’t what you’re implying), I think the thesis of the post is still true. Biotechnology is bigger than just stem cell research. I’m also sure that people will continue to attempt to extract stem cells from embryos without damaging them. So the first half of the intro needs rework, but the latter is still right on…IMHO.
http://www.genegenies.com
And so fiction is soon to become reality.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
[...] wrote a post last year (Biotechnology and the Church) in which I asserted that the church has dropped the ball on many of the bioethical issues that our [...]