fbpx
Articles

Basic Bioethics: How to illuminate the Christian perspective

/
July 13, 2017

Editor’s note: This is the fourth article in a monthly series on what Christians should know about bioethics.

Because bioethics is a topic that is unfamiliar for most Christians, I’ve used the previous three articles outlining why Christians should care about bioethics and how we can better think about such issues. Now let’s consider some ways believers can bring a Christian perspective to bear on issues of bioethics in their own circles of influence.

Although there are numerous ways to approach this task, I want to emphasize a narrative approach—using story, metaphors, books, and movies—to illuminate the Christian perspective on bioethics.

Raise awareness: The single greatest contribution most Christians can make in regards to bioethics is simply to help raise awareness of specific issues, particularly those that threaten human dignity.

We often find that Christians are completely unaware of the challenges that arise, particularly from the emerging field of biotechnology. Consider, for example, the issue of the creation of chimeras, hybrid creatures that are part human, part animal. Many people assume that we are talking about futuristic scenarios of science fiction, rather than experiments that are taking place in university laboratories today. They are often shocked to learn that Chinese researchers fused human cells with rabbit eggs or that a professor at the University of Nevada created the world's first human-sheep chimera—a creature that has 15 percent human cells and 85 percent animal cells. They are usually even more surprised to find those events occurred, respectively, in 2003 and 2007. This is an example of an issue that has been around for over a decade while few of us were paying attention.

Even when the mainstream media covers the stories they often pass from the public's attention before the underlying questions can even be examined. By helping to draw attention to such articles, we can provide the invaluable awareness that is needed for the community of believers to provide an adequate response.

Shape the language: The preservation of human dignity requires us to fight for the hearts and souls of our fellow man. One of the key ways in which Christians can aid in this struggle is to reclaim the linguistic high ground.

Language not only shapes the thought processes of individuals but molds the public discourse about bioethical issues. Dr. Leon Kass, former Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, provides a stark example:

Consider the views of life and the world reflected in the following different expressions to describe the process of generating new life. Ancient Israel, impressed with the phenomenon of transmission of life from father to son, used a word we translate as “begetting” or “siring.” The Greeks, impressed with the springing forth of new life in the cyclical processes of generation and decay, called it genesis, from a root meaning “to come into being.” . . . The premodern Christian English-speaking world, impressed with the world as a given by a Creator, used the term “pro-creation.” We, impressed with the machine and the gross national product (our own work of creation), employ a metaphor of the factory, “re-production.”

When you stop to consider the differences between such phrases as “methods of procreation” and “reproductive technology” it begins to become clear why Christians are losing ground in the fight to preserve the concept of human dignity. Any attempt to argue that embryonic human life is deserving of a particular moral status is undercut when we are using such phrases like “blastocysts produced by the technological advances of in vitro fertilization.” The language of the factory and of human dignity is as incompatible as would be the interchangeability of machine and life. Such degradation of language only leads to linguistic confusion and muddy thinking.

Engage Popular Culture: When Leon Kass took the helm of the newly created President's Council on Bioethics in 2002, he opened the council's first session in a peculiar way: he asked the other members to read Nathaniel Hawthorne's story “The Birthmark.”

Dr. Kass understood the irreplaceable role that narrative plays in developing a “richer understanding and deeper appreciation of our humanity.”

On almost every issue in bioethics, our initial introduction comes not through medical journals, scholarly essays, or even articles on websites like ERLC.com. They come from stories and narrative forms. Most of us first learn about infertility and surrogacy through the story of the biblical patriarch Abraham, his wife Sarah, and their servant Hagar. We are exposed to the themes of reproductive technology and genetic engineering through high school book reports on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. And many of our fellow citizens gained their initial exposure to voluntary euthanasia from watching Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winning film, Million Dollar Baby.

In fact, movies are one of the primary mediums in which bioethical issues are most commonly presented. Just a few of the movies that have included bioethical concerns as primary to central plot are Me Before You (2016), Amour (2012), Bella (2006), The Island (2005), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Godsend (2004), Vera Drake (2004), Code 46 (2003), Minority Report (2002), Dirty Pretty Things (2002), AI (2001), The 6th Day (2000), Bicentennial Man (1999), The Cider House Rules (1999), Gattaca (1997), and Citizen Ruth (1996). (Note: Not all of these movies are recommended or would be suitable for all Christians).

Novels are also a key form for raising questions about medical ethics and biotechnology. Some of the most prominent in the last few years include Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper, Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, and Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake.

Most people will react emotionally to such narratives—as the authors and directors intended—but few will examine their intellectual content. Christians can help illuminate these issues by discussing such films, books, plays, and stories from a Christian worldview. Exploring how reproductive and genetic freedom is addressed in Gattaca, for instance, or pondering the implications of manipulating the human brain in Eternal Sunshine can help guide your friends and family in thinking Christianly about these issues.

Conclusion

Eventually either the Christian perspective on bioethics will achieve a dominant level of acceptance or the secularist view will win, slowly but assuredly, by default. Each path will lead to sharply different results. The Christian approach—God-centered, reality-bounded, and love-impelled—leads to freedom, equality, and respect for all humanity. Basing bioethics on utilitarian and emotive values, however, results in the degradation of human dignity. Which path we choose will determine the fate of bioethics. And the fate of bioethics will determine the fate of our future.

Note: Over the next few months this series will examine individual issues that arise in bioethics and biotechnology.

Portions of this article were adapted from an essay I previously co-wrote with Matthew Eppinette, the executive director for The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.

Joe Carter

Joe Carter is the author of The Life and Faith Field Guide for Parents, the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible, and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. He also serves as an executive pastor at the McLean Bible Church Arlington location in Arlington, Virginia. Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24