The stem cell debate

President Bush considered the answers to two questions as he made his decision on funding embryonic stem cell research. “First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected?” And second, if they’re going to be destroyed anyway shouldn’t they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?” In answering these questions the President believes that “human life is a sacred gift from our creator” and should be protected. Human embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are removed and therefore he was not willing to promote embryonic stem cell research by providing federal funding. His decision was instead to provide funding for research using the 60 stem cell lines that were already in use at that time. He refused to provide federal funding for any further embryonic stem cell research since it would involve the “further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”

Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, prior to implantation in the uterine wall. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into all derivatives of the three embryonic germ layers, and are termed pluripotent. Due to their plasticity and self-renewal qualities, they are considered astounding vehicles for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement.[1] Unrestricted private-sector research continues in the United States, yet federal funding has been withheld by the Dickey-Wicker amendment and the decisions of the Bush administration.[2]
At the crux of the ethical debate concerning embryonic stem cell research is the fundamental question related to the moral status of the embryo. When and if the zygote or subsequent embryo elicits a reference to personhood is of vital importance when deconstructing the embryonic stem cell issue; the onset of personhood determines the moral or immoral nature of destroying these cells for the sake of biotechnology. President Bush was confronted with this very question in 2001, and was challenged further when the US House of Representatives passed a bill in 2006 allowing embryonic stem cell research using unwanted, donated frozen embryos from fertility clinics. An identical bill was vetoed by President Bush the previous year, and his justification remained the same. According to his White House spokesman Tony Snow, “The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong”. [3]
While there is no simple answer for anything pertaining to this ethical debate, I believe that the issue of personhood needs to be addressed. President Bush has contested federal funding for embryonic research based on the premise that human life is sacred and thus should be protected.[4] Such funding should be implemented based on status and complicity, for which I assert that embryos do not constitute “human life,” and therefore should not be granted the level of protection suggested by Robert Song. This paper will begin by confronting Song in terms of personhood and afforded protection, and will discuss the issue of surplus IVF embryos. Additionally, an alternative to Song’s notion of Christian hospitality will be discussed and applied to the stem cell debate. My objective is to strengthen the case for federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in the United States.
Beginning at fertilization, Song believes that embryos should be granted the same protection given to those unambiguously regarded as persons, such as children or grown adults.[5] While he doesn’t insist that embryos are persons, he states that if there is doubt over the status of the embryo, protection should be afforded on the basis that “to be willing to kill what for all one knows is a person is tantamount to being willing to kill a person.”[6] Analogous to his proposition is the idea that performing an activity that we think has the potential to be morally wrong is equal to performing an activity that we know is morally wrong. Therefore it’s in our best interest not to participate in the activity because the doubt involved isn’t significant enough to differentiate the two activities and warrant the acceptability of the first action. While I understand his logic, this doesn’t fit within the framework of the stem cell debate because the doubt over the personhood of the embryo is greater than Song chooses to acknowledge. Terminating an embryo that could potentially be a person, at the zygotic stage and beyond, is not equal to killing a person. A fully developed human being has a central nervous system that yields cognitive functioning and sensory capacity.[7] Physiologically, an embryo possesses neither ability, nor any other feature which allows a developed human being to function independently. I think Song’s theory is more appropriate for a debate on abortion, when the fetus’ personhood is in question, and it shares some of the physiological characteristics that constitute a fully developed human being.
Padgett makes a compelling point when referencing “the argument from ignorance” regarding when the embryo becomes a human person.[8] He believes that the notion of, “since we don’t know, better to err on the side of caution,” is more appropriate with respect to the fetus versus the embryo.[9] He believes that within the “potential person” sub-debate is the assumption that a zygote may in fact be a person.[10] I identify with this assessment. Furthermore, I agree with Padgett and his emphasis on neural activity and his apprehension to label something a human person that doesn’t have a brain cell.[11] If we choose to agree that a person’s life is over based on the termination of brain function, we should likewise necessitate brain activity when we deem an embryo a living being. Some may refute the above arguments by suggesting that personhood is an all-or-nothing phenomenon that begins at conception. Likewise, physiological development is irrelevant as the embryo inherently possesses personhood status regardless of its’ biological composition. This idea is built on the assumption that there is something intrinsically unique about the embryo at the cellular level, and fails to validate the embryo’s personhood with scientific evidence. Based on biological fact, there is a clear distinction between an embryo and a human person. Therefore, personhood should only be entitled to the latter.
Embryos should be respected, but not to the degree suggested by Song.[12] If uncertainty exists over the status of the embryo, priority should be given to those whose status isn’t under contention: scientists and third party beneficiaries. Embryos should be granted a level of respect that deters cultivation purely to benefit third parties, but shouldn’t be given personhood status which prevents scientists from using leftover embryos for research and therapy.
In the United States, it’s estimated that fertility clinics have roughly 400,000 leftover frozen embryos.[13] Many, if not all, will be discarded. I have no objection to using these surplus embryos and assume a “nothing is lost” position which includes exempting conditions such as, (a) observing that existing embryos will be discarded anyway and (b) observing that as research material they could be indirectly life-saving.[14]
When I ponder degenerative disorders such as Parkinson disease, and their potential to be squelched by the introduction of embryonic stem cell therapy, it’s difficult to overlook the utilization of leftover embryos regardless of their status. If these embryos are to be discarded, the only moral option is to introduce them to research for the sake of those who are plagued by disease. Parkinsonism produces 40,000 new cases in the United States each year, and is one of several conditions that stand to benefit from federally funded stem cell research.[15] Why should anyone suffer from such a horrific, neurologically disabling disease when a potential cure is literally being thrown away? If the Bush administration continues to restrict using surplus embryos, they should likewise oppose in vitro fertilization which is the vehicle of left over embryos. Some might argue that surplus embryos are by-products of moral intentionality, and their destruction is never intended. Using surplus embryos to benefit third parties would sanction them as instruments, and would condone an immoral action. An extreme view, held by some Roman Catholics against the “Nothing is Lost” position, implicates a scientist as complicit in the crime of abortive murder if one elects to destroy surplus embryos in the process of research and therapy. [16] I would argue that regardless of the personhood of the embryo, using them as instruments to heal the sick in our community could never be immoral or murderous. Even if personhood is granted to the embryo, a sacrificial purpose would be greater than no purpose at all.
Song discusses the Christian virtue of hospitality and the importance of giving our time and love to the stranger.[17] He incorporates this virtue into the stem cell debate by suggesting it’s especially imperative in the case of an embryo, as they don’t normally produce feelings of compassion that are equal to what are felt toward a fetus.[18] I disagree with Song’s limited interpretation of Christian hospitality as it relates to this issue. The concept of giving our time and love to the stranger should be extended to third party recipients. I would argue that the very fact we don’t instinctively feel the level of compassion that we do for a fetus excuses us from directing the same level of Christian hospitality to an embryo. Virtue ought to be exercised with a degree of discernment, which involves deciphering through the issue as a whole and making a decision—especially in the Christian context—that benefits someone who’s status isn’t in contention, in this case, the third party beneficiary versus the embryo. Song’s idea of Christian hospitality is far too limited and should include beneficiaries of embryonic stem cell research: the diseased and disabled. The virtue of Christian hospitality should focus on the Parkinson patient in this debate, not the embryo.
My objections against President Bush’s decision concerning federal funding for embryonic research challenge the questions he addressed himself when consulting his advisors and scrutinizing the issue independently. Frozen embryos are not human life, and if their destruction is imminent, they should be used for research purposes. I agree with President Bush that human life is sacred and should be protected, but I don’t believe embryos fit the criteria for the level of personhood and guardianship he proposes. I passionately believe that as stewards of the earth, our commission requires us to prioritize where we direct our medical resources and who we choose to protect. Deciding to abstain from embryonic stem cell research may avoid destroying an entity that may eventually develop into human life, but pursuing such an endeavor has the capacity to heal the suffering that are among us right now.

[1] See pp 330-331 in Maternity and Women’s Health Care 8th ed. (Mosby, 2004)
[2] Domestic Policy Council, Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life, April 2007, Pg. 5. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/stemcell)
[3] See pp. 112 in Janice Hopkins Tanne. “Democrats push for stem cell research in US”. BMJ, 2007. (www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7585/112-a)
[4] (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html)
[5] See pg. 440 in Robert Song. “Stem Cell Research? No-For Protection of the Innocent.” Word and World 23 (2003): 440, 442.
[6] See Song, 440
[7] See Maternity and Women’s Health Care, 332
[8] See pg. 443 in Alan Padgett, “Stem Cell Research? Yes-Out of Love for the neighbor.” Word and World 23 (2003): 441, 443.
[9] See Padgett, 443
[10] See Padgett, 443
[11] See Padgett, 443
[12] See Song, 440
[13] See pp. 216 in Janice Hopkins Tanne, “Bush vetoes bill to expand stem cell research”. BMJ, 2006. (www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7561/216-b)
[14] See pp. 188 in Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennet Jr., “Stem Cell Research and the Claim of the Other in the Human Subject.” Dialog 43, (2004): 184-204
[15] See pp. 414 in Understanding Pathophysiology 3rd edition. (Mosby, 2004)
[16] See Peters and Bennet Jr., 188
[17] See Song, 442
[18] See Song, 442

What is a true man of God?

Back in college, when I was in Peru, a wise man once asked me what I thought it meant to be a man of God. He challenged me to write about the subject, to essentially paint with words what God intends for us men of Christ to be. What initially felt like an easy question turned into a difficult one as I pondered through the contrasts between 21st century man and Jesus. It became even more difficult as I looked at man within the context of American culture and I attempted to incorporate Christ into this framework. It just didn't fit. How could it? Well it has been about 5 years since I had that question posed to me and I think I have an answer. What does it mean to be a man of God? To humble yourself, and let God exalt you.

When I think about this subject a verse immediately comes to mind. Paul talks in 2 Corinthians about his transformation and how he was plagued with a thorn in his side during his life. A lot of theologians believe that this thorn may have been epilepsy or some other disease. Paul pleaded with God three times to take it away but God's reply was simply, "My grace is sufficient for you. For my power is made perfect in weakness."

Weakness, why is this word not sitting with me very well right now? Personally I find no glory in weakness. Not only that, if I were to center my life here in America on the concept of weakness I would get no where. If I were single, and I was playing the dating game by exemplifying my weakness, I probably wouldn't get too many chicks. If I were to brag about my intellectual inferiority or my inability to bench press the bar at the gym, this probably wouldn't fly too well during the first date. The reason for this is because our culture is consumed by strength in every facet of human life. This transcends the dating world. It even finds itself within the investment world. When it comes to financial preparation its all about having a "strong" portfolio. We are bombarded by strong buys as indicators and even a suggestion of weakness in the market will send the bears in faster than a fresh bowl of honey. On a much larger scale we find strength used as power for global dominance. We read and hear rhetoric concerning the strength of one country's army and their nuclear arsenal. You never hear a country talking about how weak they are.

Now when I think about Christ this idea of weakness blows me away. I don't know about you but I always try to paint my own picture of Christ. Even if he says one thing I always want to make it fit within my own worldview. For example, when Christ gives the commandment to turn the other cheek, I easily look past this commandment. He can't REALLY mean this, at least not now. Maybe it fit properly within his ministry and this was essential for the apostles to integrate into their ministries but it can't be applicable now. If someone attacks me I'm going to defend myself. I'm not going to let someone hurt me. So what is Christ commanding here? What is he telling us to do? Maybe I'm looking too circumstantially or pragmatically and am therefore missing the point of this commandment. Is Christ trying to teach me about how to handle myself if someone physically assaults me or is he communicating a much larger idea? Could it be that Christ is attempting to change me? That his real goal is transformation? This commandment has just taken on greater meaning.

But lets look at this in a physical context. If some guy bumps into me on the street, gets angry and blindsides me in the face, I'm going to get upset. If I don't swing back, my heart will resonate with hate. I will be livid, and will want revenge. After all I just took a cheap shot from some random jerk over an accident. But what if I could be in such a good place, so in harmony with my creator, that a mere physical altercation could not disturb my spirit and therefore my emotions. Now I say mere, but mere is a pretty poor euphemism for taking a punch to the face. But what if that is where I immediately compartmentalized this altercation. Because it was physical, I could immediately label it as mere b/c I could separate it from the spiritual. What if I was so in tune with Jesus that the decision of someone else to lose their temper, to resort to violence, to act on sin, could lead me to produce fruits of the spirit, patience, kindness, gentleness. Isn't this what Christ did when he was being tortured and crucified? But come on this is Jesus we are talking about. He was tortured and crucified for a purpose, otherwise he wouldn't have just taken it like that. We don't have the ability as humans to act with such self constraint; oh but we do. As Paul himself wrote, we have the mind of Christ.

As a man living in America, it is near impossible to modify this macho man paradigm that is conditioned within each one of us. Experiencing a cognitive revelation of who God intends for us to become is one thing, but translating this idea into real life is a whole seperate ballgame. How do we do this? What does this look like? And then I came to this beautiful realization. We are already Men of God, transformed, delivered, sanctified, redeemed. I have to return to the foundation of what I believe. That through Christ I have been changed. By getting on my knees and offering my life over to Jesus, not just once, but everyday, will continue to alter my heart and make me more like Christ. So I don't have to seek out a new game plan to counteract the culture I live in. All I have to do is return to the roots of my faith, to get on my knees everyday and pray that I will stay focused on my weakness without Christ, and strength with him. If I turn to God within this context, he will lift me up.

making the word of Jesus stick

When I was in Junior High, I participated in a youth group that held random activities directed toward non-believers. These activities were attractive to the non-Christian community because they were non-traditional by incorporating secular music and activity. Lip syncing was a dominant theme for several of the outreach attempts for my youth group. It served as an annual activity that aimed at accommodating non-Christian attendees. This activity was always a success. It appealed to my non-Christian friends that had no previous connection to the church nor had any inclination to attend in the future. Ultimately, it served as an evangelical’s dream pool for instantaneous conversion after years of positive feedback. When the performances were completed, and the final votes were tallied for who would be crowned the first place lip syncing participant, a five minute speech was conducted before the victors were announced. Our youth group pastor would provide a 2 minute synopsis of the gospel and then continue to ask that everyone put their heads down in prayer and that those “willing” to accept the word of Jesus raise their hands in humility so that the pastor could identify and tally his overall conversion statistics for the evening. Of course I’m being both cynical and sarcastic yet in hindsight this is in fact what this 5 minute presentation of the gospel and subsequent offering of salvation half translated into. What is wrong with this form of evangelization you might ask? Well, I think that it lies in the interesting dichotomy of sharing the gospel through serving with or without the vocalization of the message of Jesus, and which method is beneficiary in gaining committed followers of Christ.

A couple years ago my wife and I attended a church in Pasadena that was fairly young. This church possessed many hopeful objectives. Some included reaching out to the community, identifying major problems within the community, and participation in the reformation of the community as a whole. One weekend they held an activity in the parking lot of one of our local supermarkets. They decided to stand outside and hand out fliers to departing customers, hoping to spawn conversation that would lead to an invitation to Sunday worship. I believe that this kind of service is a step in the right direction but I question its proficiency in bringing people to Christ.

Both examples mentioned above are what I call typical, traditional means of sharing the gospel that lack originality and long-term objectives for the new believer. In my opinion, I view our present church as fearing true communal or secular intervention and therefore avoiding consistent influence amongst the community. Instead of choosing subtle, consistent service amongst non-believers the church elects to incorporate a rare, sporadic activity that aims at bringing people to Christ immediately without a relational emphasis.

In my example concerning the lip syncing activity, there is something very empty in this attempt to bring young kids to Christ. Most of my non-Christian friends that would attend this event had never even been to church before, let alone heard the true message of Christ. Now keep in my that kids are very easily persuaded, especially in Junior High, so it would not appear unusual for many of the kids to be extremely responsive to a message concerning the gospel following a remarkable evening. Now I don’t want to take anything away from the saving power of the Holy Spirit by criticizing this five-minutes and labeling it as non-beneficiary to the salvation of others. I still believe that this sort of sharing the Gospel can produce salvation. I just question its ability to maintain people within the body of Christ and provide a correct framework of radical transformation. Can someone’s heart be truly changed by simply acknowledging Christ after a five minute message? Of course this brings about a separate issue. Is the church attempting to simply offer salvation, or is it searching to assist a new believer in understanding his or her salvation and making it applicable to his or her life? If the church elects not to choose the latter is it safe to say that the church is overlooking the significance of the word that Jesus preached. I believe that the present church may be making a grave mistake in placing too much emphasis in faith alone when seeking to bring others to Christ.

Faith is not simply a cognitive decision to acknowledge Jesus as God and to believe in his death for propitiation. True faith produces fruit. And although I believe that this acknowledgement of Christ is enough to reward salvation I don’t think it is enough to transform one’s spirit and truly set a person free from their sinful bondage. I don’t think it is enough to remove an individual from his or her lifestyle and allow this person to benefit the body of Christ and live like Jesus intended us to live.

Now what if my youth group had taken a different approach to secular outreach? Let’s say my youth group pastor’s prerogative lie in the plan to build relationships with non-Christian students through relational outreach as opposed to sudden, vocalization of the gospel with no relational basis with the kid whatsoever. Let’s say instead of inviting these lip syncing attendees to accept Jesus immediately, his focus instead exists in encouraging the children to be avid youth group attendees. He uses the five minutes after the lip-sync contest to emphasize love, community, brotherhood and other things that appeal to a spiritually ignorant, worldly immature individual that is seeking to belong to something. He begins to lay the foundation on which the Lord Jesus begins to work upon. Instead of immediately focusing on salvation solely (which is the obvious overall goal of any person in the ministry), this youth group pastor takes a different approach, inviting everyone to join the body of Christ in order for salvation to reach this individual according to God’s will, not the “out of the blue”, immediate call for everyone to repent and receive salvation.

Too many times have I experienced friends that would attend these types of youth group events, only to accept Jesus as their Lord and savior (possibly prematurely) without ever again attending youth group or Church. A year or two later these friends couldn’t recollect a single thing about their coming to Christ if you waved a twenty dollar bill in front of their eyes. An attempt by my youth group pastor to bring my friends to Christ through this brief synopsis of the Gospel and “answer” of salvation is comparable to a teacher providing the answer to an exam to all her students (an exam that consists of content they’ve never heard of) and sending them out the door, expecting them to make sense of it all “somewhere down the road”. And how much more important is it to supply a tutorial when preparing someone to understand the reality of mankind and the universe, and his or her place within nature and humanity?

The word of God isn’t simply about a man named Jesus that died so that we can go to “heaven”. It is so much deeper than this: the word is the creative force behind the entire universe. If the only objective of any church is to bring an individual to a comprehension or conceptualization of someone that died for their sins 2000 years ago and is therefore deemed worthy of their self-sacrifice then this sort of evangelizing is right on track. But if the church’s goal is to introduce someone to a relationship with Jesus that will last a lifetime, this sort of “vocalization” of the gospel may allow someone to believe in Jesus for an hour, day, or month. But when evil comes and tempts this person’s newly formulated faith by presenting adversity I don’t think I am being negative in assuming this person will suffer heavy spiritual casualty. And who will be there for this person? Do we expect this person to take initiative and come to youth group, especially if he is in junior high and does not have a spiritually encouraging family?

Of course I don’t know where the line is drawn when it comes to believing in Christ. This is something that I still question. All throughout the bible, faith without deeds is viewed as dead and unreal. Faith in Jesus can easily be rendered into a simple cognitive acknowledgement of a divine man a couple thousand years ago that taught great things and then was murdered for our benefit. Many people hold this worldview yet lack any form of self-discipline or alteration of their previous lifestyle. Is this sort of faith enough to reap eternal benefit?

Now take the act of handing out fliers at a local supermarket parking lot into consideration. (Once again I am not attempting to criticize this act of service. I would be a hypocrite if I were to do so. I congratulate the efforts of anyone, anywhere that attempts by any activity to share the message of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am simply critiquing the efficiency of this method of evangelizing). What if instead of standing in the parking lot of a supermarket and handing out fliers these people decide to dedicate an entire day cleaning up their city? Let’s say they decide to walk down the streets of Los Angeles picking up trash, with no direct objective to vocally share the gospel with anyone. Instead their objective lies in the attempt to set a standard, to be an example, to stir conversation and thought amongst non-believers that view a bunch of normal people simply volunteering their time to the community. What if these people used this service as a gateway for God to intercede and allow his spirit to summon people to them? What if the humbleness of this sort of passive activity glorified God, and enabled him to work even more? What if the message of Christ wasn’t shoved in someone’s face and started with the portrayal of a true Christian foundation?

We live in an individualistic society that is easily persuaded yet is rarely transformed. It is easy for our church to share the gospel and get an occasional repentance and acknowledgement of Christ but it difficult for a church to gain an avid, committed member of their congregation. Why is this? What sort of things need to be evaluated? People want to feel the power of Christ working in their lives now. Sure salvation gives someone something to look forward to, but what about now? What good is salvation now if the gift we receive is only redeemable after we die? Christ came to earth to liberate our hearts, to set us free. Christ came to give us salvation that begins immediately. “I come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). So few Christians emphasize this; so few non-believers see this amongst Christians. People need to witness the transformation of the heart by building relationships with Christians that have received this miraculous alteration from the Holy Spirit. Non-believers need to see actions instead of simply hearing words. They’ve heard words all their lives. We live in a culture that is all talk and rarely walk. We need to sell the message of Christ by living the truth instead of merely articulating the word.

By living the word not only will we produce life long brothers and sisters in Christ, we will also re-institutionalize the modern day church by portraying it as a body as opposed to a physical place. People will look forward to going to church for fellowship with other believers in Christ and will no longer simply view church as dutiful. Nor will their experience at church produce a feeling of insignificance and unimportance when they sit in the pew on Sunday morning. Instead they will feel part of something greater than they, something divine and certainly real. Their conditioned bias toward church will transform not only them, but others in their lives. This change in the church will spawn networking amongst non-believers and will produce positive ramifications for the Church as a whole.

Christians need to emphasize the body of Christ and seek to create an institution that transcends Sunday morning service. They need to develop a way that will not impose “salvation” nor reinforce the church as a physical place. We need to emphasize the mysticism of Christianity by withholding the ultimate offering of Salvation by first offering a foundation for our Lord to work off of. Let us be patience, and truly seek to make radical change in order for the glory of God to touch all mankind. Let us allow God to articulate the gospel according to his own will. Our job is to mimic the life of Christ as best as possible. Let us prepare our non-believing friend for the final exam that can only be offered by God.