On which topic is the vast majority of (Western) Christianity at odds with wider society most vocally? Something central to Jesus' teaching perhaps? Or a key Pauline doctrine on how to live in a world tainted by sin? Or at least, something the law of Moses dwells on? Or a topic from one of the catholic creeds? Or something that would feature in the "basis of faith" or "doctrinal statement" of most of our churches and para-church movements?
Arguably none of those (though therein lies part of the argument). No, one thing where there's a huge amount of friction is biomedical ethics, and specifically the issues around reproduction. The British Parliament is currently debating a bill on the subject, and has already voted to allow human-animal hybrid embryos (though precisely what that means is ill-explored in the press); to allow the creation of "saviour siblings" (engineered to provide genetically-suitable material to be a doner to a sick brother or sister); to remove the presumption in IVF that the child to be created should have a father figure; and, as I write, probably to retain the present term limits on abortion.
All this is taking place against the backdrop of arguments - largely from believing people - that these things are bad, unethical, and calling down judgement upon the land and/or the people. Of course, the lines are not perfectly drawn, and there are believers and unbelievers on both sides, but the voice of opposition seems to come largely from the Catholics and the Evangelicals.
Have we got it right? Of course, there's no a priori reason why society has to have got it right: indeed, there are many reasons to suppose, on many issues, that society has not. And yet, those promoting the measures described above (and embryonic stem cell research, and much else beside) do so not from a hedonistic desire to promote sexual licence or infidelity, but from a genuine wish to advance medical science, to allow as wide a cross-section of the community as possible to enjoy family life, and to avoid the terror of a return to "back-street abortions". These are all good motivations.
It would be naive to say that because the motivation is good, therefore the measures and the consequences must also be morally worthwhile. But, on the issues at hand, at least, that seems to be the direction of travel for our society. And it has much to commend it.
Man made in the image of God might well expect to wield the creative power of God. I find it hard to approve of selective breeding but disapprove of DNA manipulation. "You shall do no murder" is a plain enough command, but there is a legitimate debate about when life begins.
I have this fear of Christians painting themselves into a corner, rather as some have over creationism; rather as the JWs have over blood transfusions; rather as the Amish have over the trappings of modern life. In 50 years' time, there will be a staggering range of treatments on offer. Many will, in all probability, have had their genesis in, say, embryonic stem cells - whether as a one-off kick-start, or as an ongoing part of the treatment. Will there be a rump of Christians who refuse to have anything to do with those treatments? Will that be a large or a small rump? How will that impact telling people about God's love and the gospel of the kingdom?
It strikes me that we stand at a cross-roads. Our society is choosing to take its bus off down a particular route. We choose that route or another at our peril. But I think the time is running out for that choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment