Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« More on Terms of Address | Main | Yes Sir, Dr. Hutchens »

February 17, 2006

Human Cloning and the Imago Dei

In 1973, evangelicals weren't ready for Roe v. Wade. We had already given away too much, starting with a sharp distinction between the soul and the body. It was simple then for Southern Baptist leaders, for instance, to argue that personhood begins with the "breath of life" at birth. It took several years for evangelicals to follow the lead of Roman Catholics and denounce abortion as both a personal evil and social injustice.

I am afraid that unless Christian pulpits offer a comprehensively biblical vision of human life, we may be right back where we started. Abortion, after all, was easy for Christians to understand once they saw even the crudest sonograms, once they knew that abortion resulted in shredded limbs and spilled blood.

Now, however, the assaults on the vulnerable unborn and the dignity of life itself seem far more complex. And, unfortunately, not enough churches are discipling believers who understand that the image of God stamps humanity with the dignity of those who share a nature with the Son of Man. This includes, I fear, an evangelical theological tradition that has spoken  too often of the imago Dei in reductionist terms of human rationality.

Most Christians can now understand that "abortion stops a beating heart." But I wonder how many would be able to counter biblically the words of Dartmouth's Michael Gazzaniga in Thursday's New York Times:

Most humans practice a kind of dualism, seeing a distinction between mind and body. We all automatically confer a higher order to a developed biological entity like a human brain. We do not see cells, simple or complex — we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. It doesn't yet have the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years. Until this is understood by our politicians, the gallant efforts of so many biomedical scientists, as good as they are, will remain only stopgap measures.

Most Christians oppose human cloning, and will, I imagine, for a long time to come. But our children and grandchildren must learn more than simply the evils of some biotechnology. They must learn that human life is inviolable, not simply because of the thoughts we think or the relationships we express, but because we are stamped with the divine image, whether we are singing "Jesus Loves Me" on our mother's lap, crying mutely in a nursing home bed, or frozen helplessly in a scientist's petri dish.

Posted by Russell D. Moore at 08:12 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834647efe69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Human Cloning and the Imago Dei:

» Blogroll Roundup from Acton Institute PowerBlog
A few items of interest from friends on our blogroll: The Evangelical Ecologist and Dignans 75 Year Plan react to news about Michael Crichtons visit with President Bush. GetReligion on the government closing of a newspaper in Russia. [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 20, 2006 8:21:58 PM

Comments

According to M. Gazzaniga, "that thing in the petri dish" is less "human" because it lacks the experiences that "accumulate over the years." By this logic, an adult is more "human" than a newborn. Or a three-year old. Or an adolescent...

Given the "slippery slope" scenario, where then do we draw the line as to when it is apporpriate to deem an organism as "human" enough to deserve life? If we can abort a fetus, can we not decide to euthanize a newborn, prior to accumulation of those "memories and loves and hopes" which this definition requires for qualification as human life? Somewhere, Peter Singer must be smiling.

When we can demonstrate that tissue in the petri dish, or in the womb, shares the exact DNA as any other living organism, I will have to change my view of when life begins. Until then I agree with the Psalmist who instructed God knows us in our mother's womb -- or, by modern extrapolation, in a petri dish.

Posted by: Bruce Wade | Feb 17, 2006 9:47:32 PM

Dr. Moore,

I believe we Protestants are never going to "turn the corner" on life and family issues until we go back to our abandonment of the Church's teaching against contraception. Our acceptance of this one compromise compromises our ability to speak effectively on the other issues. Our acceptance of this one compromise laid the foundation for the subsequent changes in societal attitudes which have found some acceptance even among evangelicals. Our acceptance of this one compromise led to the right of privacy created in the Griswold decision legalizing what many Protestants were already doing, which right of privacy has formed the basis for Roe v. Wade, declaring unconstitutional criminal laws against abortion, and the Lawrence decision, declaring unconstitutional criminal laws against sodomy.

To "offer a comprehensively biblical vision of human life," our pulpits will have to address the moral problems surrounding contraception, otherwise their vision will not be comprehensive.

Posted by: GL | Feb 18, 2006 4:42:45 PM

In 1973, evangelicals weren't ready for Roe v. Wade. We had already given away too much

Dr. Moore,

What had evangelicals given away and when had they done it? Let you give you my views from a law review article on which I am working addressing efforts to force pharmacist to fill Plan-B "contraceptive" prescriptions (yet another result of Protestant compromise on contraception):


    In 1931, a year after the Anglican Communion voted to permit contraception, the Committee on Marriage and the Home of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (predecessor to the National Council of Churches), endorsed birth control. Conservative Protestant reaction was swift and unmistakably in opposition to the Federal Council’s statement. Within a month of the report, the executive secretary of the Federal Council wrote Margaret Sanger: “[T]he statement of Moral Aspects of Birth Control has aroused more opposition with the Protestant churches than we had expected and has caused some cancellation of subscriptions.” He reported that the Southern Presbyterian church “may withdraw from the Federal Council on account of this statement.” Efforts in the Presbyterian General Assembly to pass a similar resolution to that proposed by the Federal Council met with heated opposition. After a very contentious battle, conservatives succeeded in electing their candidate as moderator of the General Assembly and nearly succeeded in severing all ties to the Federal Council. Within a few months, the Northern Baptist convention disclaimed the report, declaring that the Federal Council “did not speak for the Baptist denomination in endorsing birth control” and reduced its financial support for the Federal Council.

    Opposition was also pronounced in the Methodist Episcopal church, which was also deeply divided by the issue. The Methodist Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta proclaimed that the Federal Council’s resolution “did not represent the Methodist Episcopal Church South” and another Methodist bishop declared that the Federal Council “had succumbed ‘to that pagan atmosphere of the life which the early church endeavored to cleanse.’” The United Lutheran Church of America likewise opposed the resolution. Dr. F. H. Knubel, president of the United Lutheran church noted, “It is of prime significance that the present agitation for birth control occurs at a period which is notorious for looseness in sexual morality. This fact creates suspicion as to the motives for the agitation and should warn true-minded men and women against the surrender of themselves as tools for unholy purposes.” The United Lutheran church also contemplated complete withdraw from the Federal Council. Because of the intense opposition the Federal Council, as a whole, failed to adopt the committee’s report.

    The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) also opposed artificial means of birth control. In 1923, in the official LCMS newspaper, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime,” and called Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Tony Gerring, a former member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, quotes Margaret Sanger’s tying of the birth control issue to her desire to undermine Christianity. He notes that in “1927, Concordia Publishing House, the official publishing arm of the Missouri Synod, published the Concordia Cyclopedia, which included this statement in an article on birth control:


      The president of the American Birth Control League is Mrs. Margaret Sanger, and she and several of her associates also edit a periodical in the interest of her theories. . . . The Bible very emphatically does not sanction movements of this kind. Ps. 127, 3-5; Ps. 128, 3; 1 Tim. 2, 15; 5, 14, and other passages are in force today as they ever were (p. 84).

    Gerring also quotes Walter A. Maier, a professor at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Concordia Theological Seminary and voice of the Lutheran Hour radio program. Maier specifically addressed the argument made by birth control proponents that the Bible did not speak to issue:

      The majority report of the Committee on Birth Control appointed by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America states that the Church and the Bible are “silent upon the subject.” This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.” The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

    Maier added: “Birth Control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.”

What had evangelicals given away and when had they done it?

They gave away the issue of the sanctity of life as it relates to contraception and they did so in the years between 1931 (when our ancestors adamantly opposed this innovation in teaching) and 1964 (when the LCMS became one of the last Protestant denominations to modify its teaching. The next year gave us Griswold, which declared unconstitutional prohibitions against contraception as to married couples, again, as I said earlier, legalizing what many Protestants were already doing. I have been unable to find much Protestant protest when this decision was handed down, for obvious reasons. That is the reason why "[i]n 1973, evangelicals weren't ready for Roe v. Wade. We had already given away too much."

Posted by: GL | Feb 19, 2006 8:54:06 AM

Whoa GL, that's pretty strong stuff. I think you're absolutely right, though. After a few years of the pill and then a few years of barrier methods, my wife and I embraced the idea of being open to our God-given fertility. We just had our seventh child (and first girl!) a few weeks ago.

Incidentally, the editors of the New Atlantis take on the accomplished Prof. Gazzaniga in the latest issue (in the back section). You figure he'd have gotten more philosophically astute by hanging around Dr. Kass on the President's Council for Bioethics, but I guess not...

Posted by: Gene Godbold | Feb 20, 2006 9:56:20 AM

Does anyone know of any Protestant body, of whatever size, which maintains a stance firmly opposed to artificial contraception?

Posted by: firinnteine | Feb 20, 2006 8:03:27 PM

Firinnteine,

See the Christian Reformed Church's statement on contraception.

Posted by: GL | Feb 20, 2006 8:46:51 PM

For some information to Anglican opposition to the resolution adopted at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, see http://anglicanhistory.org/contraception/. What I find interesting is how much of what the opponents predicted has come to pass. Defenders of contraception today should read what was predicted (or prophesied) as likely consequences and compare it to where we are today? Of course, it could just be coincidence, but how likely is that?

Posted by: GL | Feb 20, 2006 10:15:10 PM

Sorry, I guess I made an error in the tagging. See http://anglicanhistory.org/contraception.

Posted by: GL | Feb 20, 2006 11:18:45 PM

Post a comment