An Affinity for discussion

I'm not going to try and summarise the contents of the papers delivered at last week's Affinity Theological Studies Conference. My guess is that they will be posted in Affinity's online theological journal, Foundations at some point anyway. (See here and here for papers from the 2011 conference on the doctrine of Scripture). My aim is to reflect a little on some of the issues raised by the papers and to say a word or two about the format of the conference. 

1) Bringing the ancient text of Scripture into dialogue with cutting-edge concerns

We live in a world that has thrown up new moral concerns; economic globalisation and social justice, the legitimacy or otherwise of the use of torture by democratic regimes in combating terrorism, not to mention bioethical  issues such as embryonic stem cell research. The Bible may not address these matters directly, but are there biblical principles that can be brought to bear upon them? Part of the role of the church is to try and help its members to think biblically about the whole of life and that includes ethical reflection on economics, war, medical research and so on.

2) Brining the academy into dialogue with the church

Most of the speakers were academic specialists in their field. A couple were also pastors with a background in law and economics respectively. Responding to the issues under discussion involved grappling with biblical ethics in general before specific matters could be addressed. That in itself is a demanding task, requiring thought on the relationship between general and special revelation, the differences between Old Testament and New Testament ethics, the nature of Christian love and the intersection of the "Two Kingdoms"; that of this world and the kingdom of God. The papers given by Stephen Clark, Joshua Horden and Paul Helm were more directly theological. On the biblical studies front, Gordon Wenham offered an excellent study on the Psalms as Torah. Andy Hartropp, both an economist and theologian helped us to think through the Bible's teaching on wealth and social justice. Leonardo De Chirico's paper offered a fresh, if controversial   approach to bioethical issues. Pastors aren't usually specialists in the areas just mentioned. That is why it is important to bring the academic lectern into dialogue with the church pulpit. Part of the role of Christians in the academy is to help enable pastors to equip the people of God to face the ethical challenges of the 21st century.

3) The value of discussion

Discussion is an important element of the Affinity Theological Studies Conference. Papers are circulated beforehand for delegates to read and then introduced by their authors at the event. When that's done conference-goers gather in small groups of around half a dozen people to work their way though a list of pre-set questions. This helps to facilitate a structured discussion of the various papers. Following that delegates convene for a plenary discussion, where speakers are questioned and the issues thrashed out. It's probably fair to say that the small group sessions work better than the plenaries. I like discussion and found the format stimulating. Sometimes the papers were lacking in the area of practical application so it was helpful to try and work out how we might apply what was written in a local-church context.

4) Controversy

As I've already hinted, Leonardo De Chirico's paper was probably the most controversial of the lot. In fact, Joshua Horden used the introduction to his paper as an opportunity to critique De Chirio's key proposals. The Italian pastor argued that human life in the image of God does not begin at conception, but when the embryo is implanted in the womb. In the plenary discussion session he made it clear that he is not in favour of abortion, or research on embryos. But he has no problem with IVF that involves the destruction of 'surplus embryos' on the grounds that in nature several embryos are lost for every baby that is born. The speaker made implantation in the womb determinative of human life in the image of God, as from that moment the embryo stands in relationship to its mother. He cited Scriptures such as Jeremiah 1:5 and Galatians 1:15 to seek to prove his point. But as was argued in discussion, it is doubtful that the Bible makes a clear distinction between conception and implantation when speaking of the womb. Also, the idea that human life in the image of God, or 'ensoulment', does not begin at conception, has a distorting Christological effect. The church confesses that at the incarnation Christ assumed a full human nature, body and soul. Contrary to Apollonarian error, the divine logos did not take the place of the soul of Jesus. From conception the incarnate Son was a divine person with a complete psyco-physical human nature. If ensoulment is ordinarily delayed until implantation, then that involves an 'Apollonarian' stage on Christ's human nature, which is inconceivable according to orthodox teaching on the person of Christ.

Given the controversial nature of De Chirico's paper there was some potential for heated debate in the discussion sessions. But points of disagreement were raised courteously and the speaker attempted to clarify and explain his views in a gracious and thoughtful manner. Although some delegates agreed with him, most, I think were unconvinced. However, his paper and the discussions that followed drove us back to the Scriptures to explore what the Bible teaches on the beginning of human life.

The conference broke up early due to an expected heavy snow fall, so no panel discussion took place. 

Abortion and the 'Ultrasound Jesus'

The Guardian reports on the Churchads.net Christmas advertising  poster, featuring an image of Jesus in vitro complete with obligatory halo. The paper's slant is that the ad is implicitly pro-life and is therefore, at least according the the spokesman of the National Secular Society,  "politically motivated". Considering the recent controversial screening of the Marie Stopes advert offering abortion services, that's a bit rich. However, that's not my main point here. The Churchads poster reminds us that the virginal conception and birth of Christ has implications for bioethical issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. But this needs to be handled with great care, with sensitivity to the witness of Scripture and awareness of the creedal heritage of the Church. The Guardian article cites the comments of John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children,

"The advert is saying that Jesus was alive as a person before he was born. They have a halo round his head and you don't have a halo around the head of a blob of jelly or a cluster of cells. This is not a cluster of cells but a human person and it just happens to be the God man Jesus. It is about the humanity of the unborn. That is a very, very powerful statement that will strike a chord with the general population."

I know what Smeaton is getting at, but his statement is theologically misleading. Jesus was not a human person either in the womb or after his birth. He was a divine person with a human nature, see here. In his book, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (reviewed) Oliver Crisp devotes a chapter to Christ and the Embryo.

Crisp reasons that if human life (in Christian theology this means ensouled human life, not just biological life) does not begin at conception, then Christ was not fully human from conception. If we hold that ensoulment happens some time after conception, then in Christ's case that would entail an interim Apollinarian account of the incarnation where the divine Logos albeit temporarily took the place of Jesus' human soul. Apollinarianism is a heresy, which rules out this version of the enfleshment of Christ.

Of course there is a difference between the humanity of Christ and the humanity of all other human beings. All other humans have a human nature and are human persons. The Son of God did not become a human person. That confuguration was the error of Nestorianism which was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. Rather Christ is a divine person with a human nature. Yet just as the Son assumed an ensouled humanity from the moment of the conception of his human nature, so also all other human beings are conceived in an ensouled state. With humans apart from Christ that means all human beings are human persons from conception.

Stated with all the care and precision of Crisp's analytic theology, the virginal conception of Christ certainly has ethical implications for abortion, embryonic stem cell research and certain IVF treatments. Human beings are fully human from the moment of conception. Human life in the womb should therefore be cherished and cared for, not destroyed, even when babies suffer from disabilities. In 2009, 189,100 babies were aborted in the UK (see here). Recent news stories registered disgust that around 80 women a year opt to terminate their pregnancies after receiving IVF treatment. It seems that at least for some having a baby (or not) is just another consumer choice.

Now, I'm not overly keen on visual representations of Jesus. Did the embryonic Christ really have a halo? The image is something of a Christological cliche. But if the poster prompts people to reflect afresh on the value of human life in the womb in the light of the birth of Christ, then that's a good thing.

Oliver Crisp interviewed.

Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience

The Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience was issued on Easter Sunday, presciently anticipating Tuesday's announcement of the date of the General Election by Gordon Brown. The document sets out three areas of special concern for Christians, "protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience". Key declaration signatories include various prominent Evangelical Christians and a leading Roman Catholic Cardinal. The document commits signatories to a brief Trinitarian statement of faith and details the traditional Christian teaching on human life, marriage and freedom of conscience.

The Westminster 2010 Declaration is the UK counterpart of the Manhattan Declaration, issued in the United States in November 2009. Both declarations concentrate on the same three ethical and social issues. Also, signatories of the Manhattan Declaration include leaders from Evangelical Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox groupings. The Manhattan Declaration caused some controversy amongst Evangelicals in the States as the document seemed to imply that Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox proclaim the same gospel, skating over important theological differences. See here for my thoughts on this. However, the UK's Westminster 2010 Declaration is less problematic in this respect. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics can happily agree on its simple confession of Trinitarian faith. But there is no suggestion that both groupings preach the same gospel, implying that doctrines such as justification by faith alone are of little consequence for the proclamation of saving truth. The statement's main focus  is an expression of shared concern on the unique value of human life, the sanctity of marriage and freedom of conscience.

I believe that more than the Manhattan Declaration, the Westminster 2010 Declaration is a clear cut case of Evangelicals acting as principled co-belligerents with Roman Catholics and others who hold to historic Christians beliefs.  In the light of the many gospel-denying errors of the Roman Catholic Church, one might question whether it is appropriate to designate all supporters as "Christians" in the full New Testament sense of the word. But in this declaration signatories from Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant traditions speak with one voice on some of the key issues of the day. This is the declaration in full:

Our beliefs and values

As Christians we reaffirm historic belief in God the Father (who created us and gave us the blueprint for our lives together); in God the Son Jesus Christ our Saviour (accepting his incarnation, teaching, claims, miracles, death, resurrection and return in judgment); and in God the Holy Spirit (who lives within us, guides us and gives us strength). We commit ourselves to worship, honour and obey God.

As UK citizens we affirm our Christian commitment both to exercise social responsibility in working for the common good and also to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly.

Human life

We believe that being made in the image of God, all human life has intrinsic and equal dignity and worth and that it is the duty of the state to protect the vulnerable. We will support, protect, and be advocates for such people – including children born and unborn, and all those who are sick, disabled, addicted, elderly, in single parent families, poor, exploited, trafficked, appropriately seeking asylum, threatened by environmental change, or exploited by unjust trade, aid or debt policies. We pledge to work to protect the life of every human being from conception to its natural end and we refuse to comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that involves intentionally taking innocent human life. We will support those who take the same stand.

Marriage

We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse, and the most important unit for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. We call on government to honour, promote and protect marriage and we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage. We commit ourselves to continue affirming what we believe as Christians about sexual morality, marriage, and the family.

Conscience

We count it a special privilege to live in a democratic society where all citizens have the right to participate in the political process. We pledge to do what we can to ensure our laws are just and fair, particularly in protecting vulnerable people. We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats, not only to individuals but also to institutions including families, charities, schools and religious communities. We will not be intimidated by any cultural or political power into silence or acquiescence and we will reject measures that seek to over-rule our Christian consciences or to restrict our freedoms to express Christian beliefs, or to worship and obey God.

Commitment

We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience.

Visit the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience website.

Time for Action

Why not email the candidates from the main political parties in your constituency and ask them where they stand on areas of special Christian concern like human life, marriage and freedom of conscience? Make their responses publicly available to help other Christians make an informed choice at the ballot box. I did this before I became aware of the Westminster Declaration, but my questionnaires mainly reflect the issues highlighted in the document.

Candidate Questionnaire for South West Wiltshire Constituency: Rebecca Rennison, Labour here, Trevor Carbin, Liberal Democrat here, and Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP here. 

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

UK Members of Parliament will soon be debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Bill as it stands will allow therapeutic cloning and the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos. On the positive side, M.P.'s will have the opportunity to amend the Bill to reduce the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 or even 20 weeks. While I would like to see abortion outlawed in all but the most exceptional cases, this would be a welcome step in the right direction. British bloggers should urgently consider writing to their M.P.'s to express concern about the Bill. This is what I wrote to my own Member of Parliament:

Dear Dr. Murrison M.P.,

I understand that David Cameron recently urged the Prime Minister to allow Labour M.P.'s to have a free vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Bill raises series ethical issues and M.P.'s should be allowed to vote according to conscience rather than along Party lines. I hope that your leader will continue to press Gordon Brown on this matter.

Some aspects of the Bill are deeply disturbing. Science should not be allowed to operate on the basis of what is possible in the laboratory without regard for ethical principles. The unique dignity of human life should not be undermined by allowing the production of human/animal embryos for the extraction of stem cells. This is especially the case now that scientists are discovering the potential of adult stem cells, culled from human skin. Money should be invested in developing the benefits of this kind of research rather than in ethically questionable work on embryonic hybrids. Then we have the proposals in the Bill regarding therapeutic cloning and in some instances, reproductive cloning. These, once again represent a serious attack on the value of human life.

The Bill will also give an opportunity for M.P.'s to table an amendment reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks. In specialised neonatal units, up to 82% of babies born prematurely at 24 weeks now survive. Added to this is the new appreciation of foetal sensitivity to pain.

Please will you consider voting against the proposals on embryo research mentioned above and for an amendment that would lead to the reduction in the abortion limit.

It is often said that religious convictions should play no part in shaping the laws that govern our country. If that view had prevailed in the 18th Century, Wilberforce would never have been able to abolish slavery (I'm enjoying William Hague's book, by the way). But the Christian faith, with its insistence that human beings are made in the image of God, provides a bulwark against a wholly pragmatic and utilitarian view of what it means to be human. It seems to me that lack of belief in God is soon followed by lack of belief in man.

The Christian Institute has a helpful Index of resources on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2007/hte_bill/index.htm

Yours sincerely,

Guy Davies

Act now:

Click here to sign the Alive and Kicking Abortion Petition.

Click here to find your M.P.

Bioethics: Stem Cells

Stem cell technology has the potential to change the face of medicine. Using stem cells, it may be possible to repair damaged or diseased organs. The benefits could be huge. But Christians have long opposed "therapeutic cloning", in which stem cells are harvested from artificially created human embryos. The embryos are discarded once their stem cells have been extracted. This process is ethically problematic because human life is being treated as a disposable commodity - a means to an end. The Bible insists that human beings are to be treated with dignity as God's image bearers from womb to tomb. This does not mean that Christians are opposed to stem cell research per se. It has long been recognised that stem cells can be obtained from milk teeth, the umbilical cord and human skin. Just recently cells culled from adult skin were manipulated to create beating heart tissue (see here). Professor Ian Wilmut, creator of Dolly the cloned sheep has said that he will now abandon embryonic stem cell research. He has not come to this decision primarily for ethical reasons, but because he recognises the success of experiments on adult stem cells (see here).

It has often been said the Christians with their bioethical concerns over embryonic stem cells are standing in the way of progress. Advocates of on embryonic stem cell research have sometimes resorted to emotional blackmail, suggesting that those who oppose such work are preventing scientists from finding possible cures for Parkinson's disease, heart disease and so on. But the evidence now seems to suggest that advances may be made in stem cell research that do not entail treating human life as a medical resource. It is amazing that the Creator has so constituted the human body that we each carry our own personal repair kits in the form of stem cells. Truly we are fearfully and wonderfully made. See here for the website of John Ling, a top UK bioethicist.