|
the Stem Cell Page time and ignorance are the enemies |
|
Amendment 2 & Stem Cell Research: One Baptist Pastor’s Perspective |
|
- by Pastor David W. Johnson
Editor’s Note: Pastor Johnson serves as spiritual leader of the Overland Baptist Church in suburban St. Louis. He is among the more than 60,000 members of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.
November 6, 2006
Lately my mailbox at the church has been flooded with anti-stem cell propaganda. Much of this material is deceitful. Some alleges that voting “yes” on Amendment 2 would legalize the “surgical harvest of fetal body parts” and the “cloning of human/animal hybrids.” Such allegations are so crazy it’s difficult to believe any rational person would swallow them. But many apparently do. Hundreds of Missouri pastors have been spreading these claims in their churches, reprinting them in church newsletters and in bulletin inserts in an effort to “get out the vote.” The church has been turned into a political slime machine.
Too many of the so-called “Christian sermons” on this issue have been insulting and inflammatory. Arch Bishop Raymond Burke, the Missouri Baptist Convention and other politically militant rightwing groups hosted statewide rallies in which stem cell researchers were compared to Nazi’s. At one of these rallies Alan Keyes said, “I have news for those people supporting this (stem cell) research – God hates you!” Prominent Southern Baptist leaders were on the platform with Keyes, nodding in agreement.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself when it comes to political issues; but I believe the interests of Christ and His church would be better served with more “light” and less “heat” on this matter. Too many people have been given the false impression that voting “no” on Amendment 2 is the only Christian position. That simply isn’t true. There are sincere people of faith on both sides and Christians ought to be able to disagree without calling one another names or insulting each other.
Christians supporting Amendment 2 have a strong New Testament case for their position. Healing is the central theme in the New Testament. That’s why there are so many hospitals with names like “St. John’s” or “St. Vincent’s” or “Missouri Baptist.” Christian groups founded these institutions as an expression of mission. In Matthew 10:1, Jesus sent His disciples out specifically to “heal every disease and sickness.” Healing is so important in our faith that we are called to heal even in violation of the Sabbath. In Matthew 25: 31-46 Jesus even implied our ministry to the sick and afflicted would be one criterion whereby God would eternally judge us.
Many scientists believe that stem cell research could one day lead to cures for Altzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Diabetes, spinal cord injuries, certain types of cancers and a host of other horrible medical conditions. Although embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy, the potential benefits are real. It’s probably true that practical therapies are still decades away, but I do not believe the scientists are exaggerating the potential for this research or giving anyone false hope.
The controversy over embryonic stem cell research really boils down to one moral question: is a blastocyst, an almost microscopic bundle of 40 to 60 human cells floating in a glass Petri dish, morally equivalent to a human being. Some Christians, especially some Roman Catholics, believe passionately in this moral equivalency. But there are practical flaws in the argument. What if you were the fire chief working a three-alarm blaze at Barnes Hospital and the fire was so severe that the building was in danger of imminent collapse? Would you really order your fire crew to risk their lives by rushing into the blaze in order to save a dish of cells?
The frozen blastocysts held in storage at in-vitro fertilization clinics cannot be kept indefinitely. They eventually spoil and are routinely discarded as medical waste. So why not use them for medical research that could possibly ease the suffering of untold millions? Wouldn’t that be the more moral option under the circumstances? Wouldn’t throwing them out run counter to the very notion of Christian stewardship? The United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, and the AME church have all issued position papers on stem cell research making exactly that argument.
In our faith tradition we do not have a pope or higher religious authority that tells us what we must think or believe. The Bible alone is our sole authority on all matters of faith and practice. I have carefully searched the Scriptures related to this issue and have found no Biblical reason why all forms of stem cell research- adult and embryonic- should not be pursued. Of course, those Baptists who are aligned with the Religious Right tend to disagree.
The Missouri Baptist Convention recently issued a paper entitled “The Biblical Case against Embryonic Stem Cell Research and SCNT.” This paper argued that Amendment 2 is immoral because human life begins at “conception.” It cited Psalm 139:13-14 as a proof text, “For you created my innermost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the MBC interpretation of Psalm 139 is totally wrong, I do think it’s a bit misleading for at least two reasons.
First, the Psalms are poetry and poetic literature, by its very nature, uses artistic imagery and poetic license. Quoting Psalm 139 as though it were a literal, scientific commentary on prenatal development is hardly fair. Psalm 91:4 says that God will cover us “with His feathers” and “under His wings” we will “find refuge;” but that doesn’t mean God is a gigantic bird.
Second, the controversy over Amendment 2 doesn’t have anything to do with “conception.” The issue is more accurately “inception,” the artificial division of human cells in a laboratory. There is no “mother’s womb” involved in the process. The cells in question have zero potential for human life because they will never be implanted in anybodies womb.
Furthermore, blastocysts artificially created by SCNT or therapeutic cloning probably wouldn’t grow into a baby even if they were implanted in a womb. It took 258 tries to get “Dolly the Sheep” and Dolly died prematurely from horrible birth defects. It would be grossly immoral to attempt to clone a human baby this way and, under Amendment 2, any attempt to do so would carry stiff criminal penalties. Currently there is no law against trying to clone a human in Missouri.
Some people have asked, “In light of the moral controversy, why not just work with adult stem cells and leave the embryonic research alone?” I think that logic is short sighted. It’s a little like saying, “There was never any need to develop computers or cell phones because a slide rule was sufficient technology to get us to the moon.” Embryonic stem cell research is an emerging technology; but there is no reason for us to be afraid of it as long as there is sufficient oversight. That’s precisely why Amendment 2 was drafted in the first place – to provide oversight and prevent abuse.
In 1900 the average American male had a life expectancy of only 49 years. Today, because of medical and technological advances, people are living much longer, healthier and more productive lives. Many of the medical advances we enjoy today came with moral controversy. When immunization was first developed there were pastors who argued that scientists were “playing God.” Now many churches, including our own, give flu immunizations every fall. Fifty years ago some Baptists fiercely opposed compulsory polio immunization through the public schools. But which proved more Christian: wiping out polio or building a better iron lung?
In another 50 years Christians will probably look back at this controversy and wonder how we could have ever been so foolish.
—— To be notified by email of new editorials, CLICK HERE —— |
|
To contact us: Click Here |