Returning again to the chimeric experimenters, they're tinkering with things that are beyond them. We're not materialists. There's more to life and reality than that which is merely empirical. The reality of the materialists is a reductionism of true reality and Christians shouldn't think in those terms or operate under the ethics that flow from such thinking.
Raising these points is to open a can of worms to be sure,
but I would argue this trajectory of thought drives one to inquire regarding
the validity of human-to-human organ transplantation. While I cannot condemn
others on this point as the questions are open and good people disagree, I'm
not afraid to state that I consider myself to be pro-life (in fact far more
pro-life than the Evangelicals who claim the label) and yet I am not an organ
donor – nor would I ever consider receiving one.
For my part (and again I would not bind the consciences of
others on this point) I view medicine in the context of injury, not as an
attempt to overcome death. There is a spectrum to human experience in the realm
of injury and sickness just as there are strata to the question of ethics.
There are questions regarding what we hope to achieve, what can legitimately be
done, and perhaps most important of all – what our duty as individuals is with
regard to others.
Medicine is to promote healing and to arrest disease. It is
to state the obvious to say that disease cannot be wholly overcome – not in
this age. That doesn't mean we ignore it and let it run its course but it also
doesn't mean that eradication is viewed in connection to a larger quest in
search for a panacea. When medicine strays into the realm of the manipulation
of nature, or in a kind of re-configuration of nature and the fundamental questions
of what it means to be human, then it's straying into the realm of magic and
sorcery – which is also pertinent in other contemporary realms of discussion
from transgenderism to economics. Additionally there is a realm of treatments
that fail to make a distinction between the mind and body and instead treat
brain and mind (which Biblically can include 'heart' and spirit) as synonymous.
Usually cast within the context of materialist thought, this type of 'medicine'
both in terms of treatment (and the pharmaceuticals it produces) tends to
suppress definitions of human-ness, manipulate human nature and behaviour,
restrain conscience and in other cases it creates a mental or even spiritual
fog – as they are not easily separated. Its practices and the technologies
related to it run the risk of removing the epistemological and ethical barrier
of protection we've been given by God through common grace. Such practices,
treatments, and medicines even run the risk of opening doors to the spirit
realm and relegating existence to a kind of living virtual reality – which can
become a form of conscience-destroying idolatry. In addition to being
dehumanising, there is an assault on the imago
dei, and the potential for Romans 1 type judgment.
Related to issues of technology, there are also a set of
questions regarding human dignity and sundry treatments, practices, and
procedures which dehumanise. They may be performed (ostensibly or actually)
under the aegis of life-saving action, and yet at what cost? There are other
concerns. Many or most will agree there are things worth making sacrifices for,
even at the risk of losing one's life. Why is it these questions of dignity,
honour, virtue, and principal are abandoned when it comes to medicine? I
contend they're not and consequently just as I take great umbrage at the many
and various dehumanising elements of modern technology and thus at times refuse
to interact with them – the same is true in the realm of medicine. Restoration
is theoretically a valid concept and pursuit but it's not so easy to flesh out
its meaning or extent. How far should we go? It's one thing to arrest the
progress of an injury, but does restoration become an end in itself? Is it right
to dehumanise in order to restore humanity? Is there a danger of embracing
consequentialist ethics in such an approach? Is something lost in the process?
Secular materialist medicine which views life as an end in itself says all
measures are justifiable no matter how invasive or dehumanising. But are they?
And even this is an oversimplification. Even materialist medicine reaches its
limits, faces myriad dilemmas and struggles with basic definitions regarding
things like viability, dignity, cognition, and even the point of death.
And reaching beyond issues surrounding medical repair,
mitigation, and restoration, once the question of treating medicine and
pharmacology in terms of enhancement is
broached, that's something else entirely. From stimulants to neurotransmitters,
genetics, and hormones there's a spectrum of medicine that is difficult to work
through in terms of consistent and principled ethics. There are lines drawn
where a little bit of something for a targeted purpose is okay, but when used
differently it becomes problematic. But the principles behind these decisions
and the ethics that shepherd them are not always crystal clear, consistent, or
even coherent. Social mores, legalities, liabilities, cost, and cultural
attitudes play a part in how these decisions are made.
It's beyond the scope of this article but it's a growing
concern and as materialistic thinking has permeated almost all of society – and
even the Church, like it or not these are the people we will have to deal with
when it comes to making medical decisions, and even more complicated and
troubling – decisions for our children. My children are essentially grown and
I'm glad for it. But my reasons are selfish and I'm already burdened by the
thought of the world my future grandchildren will be reared in. In others words
I pity my own children as parents and what they will face.
Returning to the topic at hand, the blending of human and
animal is a clear case of nature violation – actually reminiscent of the
strange flesh argumentation seen in Jude. It calls one to employ the Latin
phrase contra naturam, against
nature, even nature as it exists in the post-edenic, post-lapsum context.
In summary, life in this world should not be viewed as an
absolute, an end in and of itself. That's not the attitude seen with Paul,
Peter, and the other apostles. Life as an end (as opposed to a means) is not
really a Christian attitude and it needs to be understood and stated in clear
terms that the pro-life movement is not really pro-life but instead represents
a package of ideas wed to a political narrative and is used to that end. In
many spheres such as economics and the movement's tendency to support
militarism their actions and ideas are anything but pro-life. In terms of
medicine and medical ethics, the movement is clearly inconsistent, confused,
and in many cases self-serving.
Life as an end represents the world's attitudes about the
nature of life and existence especially in a materialist context. This life is
all there is and thus there are no limits to extending it or prolonging it. The
search for the Fountain of Youth should not be a Christian concern nor is it a
quest that should even tempt Christians. With Paul we should say that to live
is Christ and to die is gain. Modern medicine, especially some of the cutting
edge and experimental procedures (along with the trans-humanist movement)
represent lost thinking and desperation.
As Christians we know better and should think differently. We
take up the cross and will give our lives when called to do so but we should
never treat other lives as cheap and we should be willing to sacrifice
ourselves (and our earthly goods and comforts) that others might live – a
cross-bearing pro-life ethic completely abandoned and repudiated by large
segments of the Church during the era of Covid. For there is always the hope of
repentance and we should never tempt God or live as if we cling to life as the
lost do or as if we're willing to harm or destroy others that we might live in
comfort. The willingness to embrace lies and engage in self-deception on these
points in order to rationalise anti-Christian behaviour (in the name of Christ
no less!) was especially troubling and a sign of judgment. Such attitudes
represent a gross misunderstanding of grace – one all too common in the
Evangelical world and sometimes even openly expressed by its blind and
compromised hireling leaders.
We don't begrudge someone who wants to live but such
procedures and manipulations shouldn't interest us. We cannot be dogmatic in
terms of binding others on this point or in the details. These issues are
complicated and people are thrown into difficult and very emotional situations.
It's not easy and I don't profess to have all the answers and I won't judge the
decisions others make – even though they are likely to judge mine. But
personally I have rather strong feelings about some of these points – at least
in terms of my own life and what procedures I would or would not pursue. I
desire a good life but also a good death. I've seen not a few Christians die deaths
I would be ashamed of, would not want to experience, nor subject my family to.
Our life ethic should be rooted in love of neighbour. This is
something quite different than Right-wing 'pro-life' politics. That movement is
motivated by a complex of power and mammon-related concerns that are (from a Christian
viewpoint) misguided, and at times terribly so.
And so while I think many Christians will be concerned with
this chimeric medicine, in many cases I don't think their concerns are properly
grounded and in some cases they will be rightly disturbed for the wrong
reasons. Regardless, it represents both a fascinating and troubling development
and there will be a spectrum of responses to it. We had better be clear in our
thinking and at the very least be
thinking about these things and the dystopic brave new world that is
emerging.
This is not to say that all was fine before. By no means. In many respects the world being left behind, the celebrated world of the Sacralist was also (from a New Testament standpoint) dystopian. This is the story of the post-lapsarian world and its reiterative cycle of Beast powers. What's striking me at the moment is not that the emerging world is that much more wicked – it simply is a different kind of wicked or wickedness in a different form. And as we're living through the period of transition, there's a kind of disorientating aspect to the change. It's easy to let emotions take hold. That's a danger we had best avoid.