We love a diagnosis that we are in “perfect†health but have you ever thought about what that means? How is the “perfect†diagnosis affected by age or mental condition?
Questions like these swirl around a new initiative by Google, which announced that it wants to collect molecular and genetic information to ascertain the “genetics of health.â€Â Read the story at: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/what-perfect-human-health-google-wants-map-it-n170486
One of the on-going debates is paying people to donate their organs, to serve as surrogate parents, to give up eggs or sperm and to be human guinea pigs to test new medications.Â
 Two related topics surfaced in my reading this week. The first topic is the flourishing surrogate parenting market in China where poor women are sought out and paid to be surrogate mothers for the wealthy. Two stories worth reviewing: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/world/asia/china-experiences-a-booming-black-market-in-child-surrogacy.html?_r=0
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/835574-the-dark-side-of-giving-childless-couples-babies-in-china/
 As a caveat to the theme of surrogacy, Thailand is outlawing surrogacy in the aftermath of stories about an abandoned Thai surrogate mother and her child with Down syndrome and the Japanese man who claims to have fathered 13 babies through Thai surrogate mothers. Read more at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-thailand-surrogacy-lawmaking-idUSKBN0GD0SM20140813
 The second story is about the homeless being paid to serve as human lab rats to test medications: https://medium.com/matter/did-big-pharma-test-your-meds-on-homeless-people-a6d8d3fc7dfe
The ethical challenge with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is the high loss of life for human beings in the embryonic stage. Also, in favor of the Biblical ideal, many advocate for children to be brought into a solid relationship that has both a husband and wife. As a result the idea of a single woman having a child via IVF is rarely discussed.
Now, however, ethicists from Boston College argue that single women should not be allowed to have IVF as a measure to keep the population down. Read the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10988963/Single-women-should-not-get-free-IVF-say-ethics-experts.html
While in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has permitted many infertile couples to have children, many more children have died through the destroying of unneeded or unwanted embryos. There are also now legal mandates for such destruction.
New Zealand requires that all sperm, embryos, eggs, ovarian and testicular tissue that has been frozen for ten or more years be destroyed after November 22nd or the respective clinic will be fined $20,000. The United Kingdom requires disposal after five years and Australia has a five year guideline but no legislation.
For New Zealand this will be the first time this legislation will be enforced. Read the full story at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10315376/Time-runs-out-for-frozen-embryos
My wife and I went to see “The Giver” and I would recommend it. As a film goes I feel it was well done. It also serves as a fascinating statement about society’s vision of “utopia” and its selective value on human life. Click here for an accurate summary and review of the movie.
What is ALS?
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressively degenerative neurological disease. It is also known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease,†named for the popular baseball player who died of the malady in 1941, just 17 days shy of his 39th birthday.
ALS is a fatal condition that affects approximately 5,600 people each year according to the ALS Association. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans are affected by the disease at any given time.
Presently there is no cure for ALS. Some treatments ease symptoms and one treatment, Riluzole, is estimated to extend survival by several months.
The Ice Bucket Challenge
The “ice bucket challenge†is a fund raising and public awareness campaign of the ALS Association. Being doused with a bucket of ice water and sharing the experience via social media has dramatically heightened society’s awareness of ALS and has brought in a huge surge of financial support for the ALS Association. According to an August 22, 2014 post on the ALS Association website, the campaign has raised more than $53 million for ALS research.
 The Issue
From a conservative Christian and pro-life perspective, the primary point of contention about the effort is the admission by the ALS Association that it presently funds one study that uses embryonic stem cells – a process that requires the destruction of human life in its embryonic stage in order to extract stem cells.
The ALS Association defends embryonic stem cell research, claiming they will leave “no stone unturned†in the quest for a cure. Opponents of that kind of research are justly offended.
The Case to Boycott the Ice Bucket Challenge
Life begins at conception. It is a testimony supported not only by biology but also by Scripture (i.e., Psalm 51:5). Advocates of using stem cells claim it provides the best chance for discovering a cure to this fatal condition. Perhaps, yet from the Scriptural perspective, life has an intrinsic value rooted in its Creator and Redeemer. Taking life, even for the noble intention of potentially helping others, has no Scriptural support. Conversely, protecting it and caring for it permeates the pages of Scripture.
There is substantial pressure to participate in the ice bucket challenge. Celebrities, friends and family members are jumping on the bandwagon, and the social networks are filling the Internet and airwaves with pictures, videos and testimonials all focused on raising money to beat ALS.
ALS is a terrible affliction. It is noble to seek its cure but to do so without acknowledging its limits is wrong. One such limit is research when it costs the lives of others. It was the gruesome revelations from the Nazi eugenic experiments that made this point exceptionally clear.
What modern science has done, however, is place human life under a microscope that shades the value of life by its cognizance, wantedness, and productivity (CWP) and then wraps it in the banner of autonomy or “choice.â€Â Therefore, life at its earliest state, from the moment of fertilization, is often deemed expendable because it does not have a perceptible cognizance or self-awareness. Harvesting “leftover†IVF embryos means they are not wanted. The argument for productivity is framed to permit destruction for the sake of research as the most productive use of unwanted embryos. And because embryos are treated more as property than people, it is the autonomous choice of the parent(s) whether to dispose of this life.
Many pro-life groups and conservative Christian agencies advocate boycotting the ice bucket challenge for three simple reasons:
Often lost in all the rhetoric is that there are worthy alternatives – agencies researching treatments and cures for ALS that use only adult stem cells. Two such agencies would be The John Paul II Medical Research Institute in Iowa City, Iowa and the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center at KU Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. Using adult stem cells does not involve the termination of life in order to obtain them.
These are the reasons some advocate boycotting the ice bucket challenge.
The Case for Getting Wet
There is, however, another perspective and it has to do with the way we frame the premier Christian mission in life. That mission is to share Christ and help people stay in accord with God’s will and not endanger their souls?
It is not enough to call out error; to condemn evil; or to isolate ourselves for that which is bad. Scripture clearly teaches that there is a goal in calling out sin and error. That goal is not to appear right in contrast to the error (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 3:23).
Our goal is to reflect God’s goal, which is the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:4). To do that requires the nurturing of a relationship to have a forum to witness. We are to turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29); to be gentle towards everyone (Philippians 4:5); to be patient with others (Ephesians 4:2) and to be loving, even when it comes to correcting error (1 Peter 4:8).
Yes, the ALS Association is wrong to fund research involving terminating lives in their embryonic stage to extract stem cells. The question, therefore, is how do we show compassion for those afflicted with ALS and establish a relationship that permits us to testify to the truth and to the love of God for us through Christ?
Money talks and we face a practical obstacle with the ice bucket challenge. Depending on the reports you read, the ice bucket challenge campaign has already brought to the ALS Association more than 20 times the income it received last year at this time. For an agency that already accepts embryonic stem cell research, it is difficult to imagine a boycott substantial enough to garner much attention. Huge financial results from the campaign speaks loudly.
So perhaps, getting wet may open a door. On Facebook you will find numerous testimonies of those who have wrestled with a friend or loved one who is suffering with or who has died from ALS. Their stories are moving. I am certain many or most of those who support ALS research are unware that the ALS Association supports embryonic stem cell research. A boycott that attracts some media attention will be a revelation for many of those people.
The impact will be minimal. For years pro-life Christians have denounced the destruction of embryonic life for stem cells. Nevertheless the research continues and expands. Even many Christians who have not grown sufficiently in God’s Word, have bought into the CWP mentality of society, wrapping it in an argument of autonomy. We have seen it in the abortion debate for decades.
If we want to testify to the truth while building a foundation for discourse and instruction in the will of God, are there other ways than boycotting the ice bucket challenge?
The ALS Association has announced that donors can restrict their gift and prohibit it from going to embryonic stem cell research. As a result many Christians have taken the ice bucket challenge and as they promoted it on their Facebook page announced they had done it and publicly asked ALS not to permit the receipts to kill unborn children. I find it to be a refreshing and positive testimony while wanting to testify to the truth.
I know the ALS Association can do some fund shifting with unrestricted funds to continue supporting embryonic stem cell research. But remember the goal: to establish a relationship so a Christian can credibly testify to the truth in a spirit of patience and careful instruction. Most any charitable agency is far more receptive to a donor who supports the big picture and offers gentle encouragement to correct error than to a non-donor announcing a boycott.
Ask yourself, when it comes to being corrected when you have made a mistake, how receptive are you to correction from those you have never met compared to correction from those you count as friends? How receptive are you to correction when it comes gently, patiently and genuinely as compared to when it has a tone of bitterness and judgment?
My point simply is this – If we are concerned first about the soul, then maybe getting wet opens the door for us to talk about our concerns. Maybe restricting a gift to support ethical research with the ALS Association will provide the opportunity to instruct those who need instruction about what is wrong, what is right, and why we pursue that which is right.
I encourage caution to avoid quick judgment on those who boycott and those who do not. It was Jesus who sat down with the tax collectors and prostitutes of His time not to endorse sin but to build a relationship of genuine concern for the soul and then provide correction and direction. Something to think about!
In January of 2013 I wrote an article on the changing language of abortion. In 1974 when the House of Representatives considered the merits of a Human Life Amendment advocates of abortion rights testified this would all be a different matter if we knew that the unborn child really was a person. That was disingenuous.
About ten years later abortion advocates conceded that what was in the womb was “living tissue” but was much more like a parasitical growth than a person. It was a diversionary tactic to shift to the debate from talking “life” to defining “personhood.”
In another ten years abortion advocates started to come clean, admitting that abortion takes the life of a person but justified it as an emotionally sad but necessary evil. Clinging still to the old mantra of “safe, legal and rare” abortion advocates continued to venerate the role of a woman being free of all encumbrances – including pregnancy – if she so chose. They continued their relentless war against children and against anyone who felt a human life is worthy of protection regardless of its condition or maturity.
In the next evolutionary step of the abortion-rights movement we now have more candor. Whereas marketing gurus advised the abortion-rights movement in the early 1970s not to use the term “abortion” to make their case because it was unsellable to the American public, today the term is being embraced. That is perhaps best represented by an article from Wesley Smith. Definitely read it.
The root of this problem, however, has not changed and pro-life Christians need to step to the plate and eschew timidity. The command to “speak up” was great advice from a caring mother to her son, the king, who had a forum to make a difference (Proverbs 31:8). As Christians living in a democratic form of government, where freedom of speech and religion are still espoused, though arguable endangered, we too have a forum to make a difference.
The difference to be made requires the insight to recognize the problem is bigger than our laws and our courts. This is a battle for the very hearts of people. Showing pictures of aborted children had some effect. In time it called out the misleading nature of “pro-choice” rhetoric. It demonstrated that abortion is what it really is – the taking of a human life. Those were babies lying in a bucket. That is a tiny hand and those were tiny feet of a real child.
What I believe was a miscalculation on the part of the pro-life, and especially the Christian pro-life community, is that we presumed that the visual revelation of life being taken would suffice to cause life to be protected. We believed that the “natural law” written on our hearts instinctively will compel us to protect life as inherently precious and sacred.
I believe we overlooked the significance of the first recorded sin in Scripture after the exodus from Eden. For various reasons Cain devalued the life of his brother, Abel. It became expendable and Cain was able to suppress the natural knowledge of life’s intrinsic value and kill his brother.
Thousands of years later Jesus was to warn that as wickedness increased in the world so would the love, commitment and concern of people for others grow cold (Matthew 24:12). We hardly need greater testimony than the execution of Christ Himself. Though used by God to bring eternal life to all of us, His crucifixion demonstrated just how cold the world had already become – killing the only perfectly innocent one ever to have lived.
So today, we have an evolving abortion rhetoric. No longer is it just a blob of tissue. It is not just living organic matter. Today it is a life, a person, a baby, that should be deemed expendable. The argument for abortion continues to evolve. What’s next?
The logic is painfully obvious. In a world where pro-choice has evolved into pro-abortion we see the road signs of what is ahead. It is a small leap in logic to go from taking life inside of the womb to taking life outside of the womb. We already have legalized assisted suicide in some states. Countries further down this path have evolved that doctrine into a right to terminate the lives of newborn children. Some are arguing that the mentally depressed be entitled to assistance in ending their own lives.
The symptoms can be treated with laws, referendums and clear thinking justices. The illness, however, is only healed through the word of God.
Our culture today has walked away from any appeal to an objective source of right and wrong. Not only have nations turned their back on the Judeo-Christian ethic but its people are being encouraged to set their own standards and to do what they think is right, feels good and is to their advantage.
The temptation to wander from the truth of God’s Word has been there since Cain killed Abel. Pontius Pilate questioned the nature of truth during his interrogation of Jesus (John 18:38). Professional philosophers and a world full of amateurs debate publicly and privately about the nature of truth as if the answer will be found if we talk about it enough.
It sounds old fashioned, and not certainly not very politically-correct, but Scripture is truth (John 17:17). Those are not my words but the words of Christ. Yet, even Christians look for “exceptions” to God’s Word to accommodate the desires of the times.
Any cultural reformation begins with a reformation of the hearts. Reforming the hearts is a spiritual activity done with the ministry of God’s Word. Christians should seek to build relationships in order to have a forum to share God’s Word.
Advocates for the legalized killing of others are misguided by the doctrines of the world. To correct requires great patience and careful instruction. That requires building a relationship. You don’t do that with name-calling, slander and violence. Most importantly, it begins with the courage to speak up and stand firm.
It is important that we are aware of the changing nature of the abortion debate. It is important that we see how it began, how it has changed, what it has become and anticipating where it is going. It is important to have good laws, good legislators and good justices. But it is most important that God’s Word be shared for the building up of people. That is the assignment we have from God. It saves lives and it saves souls.
The following is an adaptation of a chapel address I delivered on July 2, 2014 at the headquarters of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Luke 20:20-26: Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?†He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?†“Caesar’s,†they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.†They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (NIV84)
Jesus is wrong – or that is the conclusion many people reach when it comes to our relationship with the government. Let me illustrate:
The temperance movement can be traced in U.S. history back to the revolutionary war. Often incited by the robust words of enthusiastic preachers, the result was that on December 18, 1917 a bipartisan House of Representatives and Senate handed to the states the 18th Amendment for ratification, which occurred 1 year and 29 days later. It made the production, transportation and sale of alcohol illegal in the United States.
The State of Minnesota was on the cutting edge. Following passage of the 18th Amendment Andrew Volstead, a former mayor of Granite Falls, MN and then a Republican member of the House of Representatives introduced what is called the Volstead Act which outlined how states were to enforce the intent of the 18th Amendment.
Today, the state of Minnesota is one of 12 remaining states that restricts liquor sales on Sundays. It is a matter of on-going debate in Minnesota.
In the latter 1970s, when I was a student at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, MN a town hall meeting was held to discuss the merits of overturning the “blue law†which outlawed Sunday liquor sales in Minnesota.
One panelist was a retired police officer who worked for a Christian agency engaged in rehabilitating substance abusers. To the surprise of some, he argued for lifting the ban of alcohol sales on Sunday. His reasoning was that problem drinkers can be controlled better through liquor stores and bars which were prohibited from serving intoxicated customers. The blue law spiked alcohol sales on Saturdays and these problem drinkers were often intoxicated on Sundays, driving automobiles and abusing spouses and children.
It is not important whether you agree with him or not. What is important is when a lady in the studio audience got up to be heard. With microphone in hand she chastised this man for his position. She expressed particular outrage that a servant of God would argue to legalize the sale of alcohol on the Lord’s Day.
The panelist did not fluster at the challenge. He often a rephrasing of his reasoning and then pointed out, “Well ma’am, even Jesus changed water into wine.†She tersely replied, “That’s the one thing I don’t like about him!â€
To us the error is obvious. But I do wonder how many Christians today would believe that Jesus had it wrong when he endorsed paying taxes to Caesar.
On Monday (June 30, 2014) the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right for closely held corporations to opt out of funding some forms of birth control. The Court steered clear of making this an issue about birth control or abortion. Their focus was on the question of religious liberty and how far that trickles down the corporate ladder.
Advocates of abortion framed their outrage by calling this an attack on women. Advocates of religious liberty invoked this decision as reflecting the spirit of our founding fathers and the religious liberty invoked 238 years ago in the Declaration of Independent. In reality, women were not attacked and religious liberty was merely acknowledged. Birth control that terminates human life was not banned nor were women forbidden from getting it for free. The 5-judge majority in the ruling outlined how the insurance company should offer birth control coverage for free, regardless of the method, because it is cheaper than paying for child birth. Or, if the insurance companies were reluctant, the government can pay. So women lost nothing and religious liberty got polite lip service.
Outside the scope of the Court’s ruling are some harsh spiritual realities. When you have sinful people binding together with other sinful people to govern a nation of sinful people cohabitating in a world full of sinful people you will not get perfect coexistence.
At the time of Christ, the Roman government was considered one of the earliest manifestations of a Republic form of governing. In that society, however, the Jews and Christians were a prejudiced group. To my knowledge they had no representative in the Roman Senate speaking up for their religious liberty. They had no process of referendum to right any wrongs committed by their governing leaders. Tax money was certainly not the tool for changing hearts.
In the oppressive Roman regime Jesus and His disciples, as well as the Apostle Paul, could still testify to their faith. At different times in Roman history that could be a very dangerous thing. In the end, however, squabbling over taxes, assassination plots of Roman leaders, fighting armies and voting senates changed nobody’s heart. Finally, we give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and what we give to God is our lives of love, commitment and testimony.
The disciples themselves later could not keep silent about what they had seen and heard. Even in oppression they found opportunities to speak. And if we are to change hearts on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and every other social ill we have come up with, it will not happen by any other means than with us being God’s instruments in proclaiming truth, life and salvation.
If all we have done is gotten off the hook of paying for abortifacient birth control we will have failed. It is our testimony of truth, proclaimed in a society of liberty, which changes hearts.
Jesus was not wrong! We give to Caesar what is Caesar’s not because Caesar (the governing authorities) is so good at using it but because he is an instrument of God placed over us for our protection. And we give to God our lives, our service and our testimony, not because we are so good at it but because He takes these mortal vessels of clay and fashions them to proclaim a message that saves lives and changes eternities. May all of us cherish our religious liberty as a more comfortable setting to make our witness, and may God’s message of our salvation prompt us to be a witness to life eternal through Christ. Amen.
The late Art Linkletter used to do a segment in his radio and television show entitled, “Kids Say the Darnedest Things.” Growing up my mother used to say, “If you want to know the truth ask a drunk or ask a kid.”
In reality we banter about a lot of thoughtless words. Correcting the way we speak has gone from a focus on grammar to a focus on political correctness. I venture to say simple thoughtfulness might be the better solution.
Jesus said, “The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart.” (Matthew 15:18). How is your heart? How do your words reflect your faith, your convictions about God and His will for your life?
I can think of many examples throughout all of life where we could polish the way we say things. For now, I want to focus on pregnancy.
The most common question asked of expectant parents is, “Are you hoping for a boy or girl.” In this generation of prenatal testing and ultrasound we can learn the sex of our unborn children and a host of other things as well. Consequently, a common, and thoughtless, response is “It really doesn’t matter, as long as it is healthy.” Sometimes it comes from supportive friends and family and sometimes it comes for anxious expectant parents.
Nothing wrong with wanting good health. When I pray that someone be healed of their wounds, illness, or disease I am clearly showing a desire for good health. That is also my view of a pregnancy. I want every child born in great health with optimum opportunities for survival and every mother kept safe throughout the pregnancy and childbirth. The vexing question is, “Does a baby have to be healthy to be appreciated, welcomed, or desired?” If not, why use the conditional, “as long as it is healthy”?
When we thoughtlessly augment our well-wishes by placing the bar only so low as looking for a “healthy” child, it communicates a negative message about those who are not healthy and perhaps betrays a darkened heart on our part. Are less-healthy children less wanted? Are they less precious? Or, in this era of abortion-on-demand, are they better off dead? Worse yet, will having them dead be better off for us who are “healthy”?
These are the kinds of questions ranking high in a society that has shifted its focus from an absolute or intrinsic value outlook of human life to a qualitative outlook. Instead of viewing all life as equal in the sight of God, who sacrificed His own Son for all people – the healthy and unhealthy – we are increasingly selective about the lives valuee and celebrated.
I ran across a blog by a woman who was blessed with a baby boy. While still in the womb that child was diagnosed with Spina Bifada. She wrote a thoughtful article entitled, “As Long As It is Healthy. But What if it’s Not?“ Take a moment to read it. It is a more-than-subtle encouragement for us to be a bit more thoughtful in the way we speak.
In closing, I realize in criticizing thoughtless language I am also guilty of using it on occasion. I have learned much about measuring my words and I know there is much yet to learn. I have discovered that when at a loss for what to say we tend to use cliches or words that clearly reveal our naivete.  Growing in our understanding of the value of all human life, born and unborn, healthy or weak, will help us be more thoughtful, more supportive and definitely less conditional in how we speak about life.
The Hobby Lobby case on the birth control requirement in the Affordable Health Care Act has generated a lot of discussion. On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 the case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). I found a nice summary of the case here.
