Well, another year has slipped by and now it is Christmas. I hope that all have a wonderful and blessed Christmas. I'll try to post soon after the first of the year if not not sooner.
John
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
New things..
Greetings to all. It's been a while since I've posted so I thought that I would post just a simple note. Now that this blog is hooked up to my email, I'll try to post more often.
Well, as I write this, my family has moved to a new place. Louisianna is the new place we call home. As time goes on, I'll try to write more about our experience.
Blessings.
Well, as I write this, my family has moved to a new place. Louisianna is the new place we call home. As time goes on, I'll try to write more about our experience.
Blessings.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Inclusion?
The following article was written by Rev. Carlton Pearson followed by my comments on the subject. I began a discussion with my fellow pastors at my church about this inclusion topic. When they respond, I'll add their comments on the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are fewer matters more urgent in today's pluralistic culture than the issue of the centrality of the cross and the accurate articulation and expression of the Universal love of God toward all of humankind.
As stated in I John 2:2, "He, (Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only our sins [inclusion], but the sins of the whole world." The atonement of Christ for the sin of the world, was and is inclusive and is not limited to a few fortunate believers.
Does being "born-again" save us or does it simply bring to light a condition that already exists—wrought and bought by the blood of Jesus at Calvary? Does believing make you born-again or does being born-again make me a believer?
I think we in evangelical Christianity have ignored the Sovereignty of God and limited the scope and sweep of His great Love toward all. Scripture says, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" ( Romans 5:20)— He died once for all. (Romans 6:10 and 1 Pet. 3:18) And contrary to popular opinion, our belief systems and religious presuppositions do not invalidate or reverse the effectiveness or efficiency of the finished work of Calvary. (Rom. 3:3).
If death is automatic because of Adam, life is automatic because of Christ, without our vote or prior approval. As the disobedience of one man made us all sinners, by the obedience of one man we were all made righteous. (Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Cor. 15:22).
The whole world is saved (redeemed), but all are not aware. Jesus is the Savior of, not just for, all men, but has a special relationship with those who believe. Those who recognize and Acknowledge this truth have been given the message and ministry of reconciliation—the very Words and logic of God, to share with the unknowing an unbelieving world. (Romans 3:1-2 and 2Cor. 5:18-19).
I close with this quote sent to me by the VP of a major Christian publishing company; "...the Law of God condemns us all until, while we are still sinners, grace comes and liberates us from it's curse without a single condition attached; no improvements demanded, no promises extorted-just the extravagant, outrageous, hilarious absurdity of free grace and undying love."
Because all men were included in the finished work of Calvary, when all is said and done, ". . . every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD—the Savior of the world!" (Phil. 2:9-11)
Peace,Bishop Carlton D. Pearson
-----------------------------------------------------
Here are my, John Ritter's, commnets:
Ok, Ok, so I couldn't wait to give my thoughts...
First off, for those of you who are not familiar with the theological term "inclusion" let me first define the term so we are all on the same page. The word inclusion is also used synonymously with universal reconciliation which is different from Unitarian Universalist's who basically believe that there are many ways to God aside from Christianity.
At any rate, universalist's believe that Christ died for all humanity with the caveat that all are saved wheather they realize it or not and that there is no literal hell. Hell comes in the form of a daily hell due to living in this temporary life which is filled with pain and disappointment. Thus, hell becomes anything that is seen as a trial or suffering here on this earth.
Here is a couple of points that are from the "Christian Universalist website that gives further insight: http://www.christianuniversalist.org/beliefs.html
4.
We believe in the ultimate triumph of divine mercy and grace: that no being ever created will be condemned or allowed to suffer forever, but God has arranged through a benevolent plan of learning and growth for all souls to attain salvation, reconciliation, restoration, and reunion with the Source of All Being, in the fullness of the ages.
6.
We believe in miracles and mysterious spiritual phenomena, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which transcend materialistic views of reality.
7.
We believe that God's Holy Spirit has inspired numerous prophets, saints, philosophers, and mystics throughout history, in a variety of cultures and traditions; and that by reading the Bible and other great texts of spiritual and moral wisdom with a discerning mind, and meditating to connect to the Spirit within, we may all gain a greater understanding of truth, which should be applied for the betterment of ourselves and our world.
The reason that I mention the whole concept of universalism is due to the fact that Carlton Pearson embraces Universalist ideals. Although it be true that Christ died that none should perish or the universality of Christ death being made for the sacrifice of sin for all mankind, there will be those who will not make it into the new kingdom of heaven as described in the book of Revelations Ch. 20 verses 14-15 " 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyones name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. " (NASB) Although much of the book of Revelations can be seen as symbolic as it relates to eschatology as it reflects apocalyptic literature as was seen by the writings of Daniel, Jeremiah and so on; the concept that there is a hell that those who do not rely upon the righteousness of Christ will be lost.
Therefore, if one were to come to the believe that all mankind has now become "saved-redeemed-born/again" but not yet come to the "self-awareness" of that salvation/redemption as the universalists do, then one would have to disregard this portion of holy scripture which clearly points out that those who name are not written in the book will be cast into the lake of fire. Obviously the universalist would comment that the text here contains the word "if", which would indicate that it is possible that there could be no-one that would go there. However, consideration must be given to the context of the scripture used so that all would be cleared up. For the text is directly relating to those who are physicallly dead and who are being judged according to their deeds on earth. So, the word "if" that is in the text is really refering to those who are dead and according to their deeds have not trusted upon Christ for salvation then they will be lost to a firey eternity as stated above. He, John, is relating the scene that was being played out beofore him...that if those who were coming before God were not found in the book of life, then they would be discarded in the lake of fire.
Now on to the word "self awareness". Contained within the other e-mail that I sent, Mr. Pearson stated that, "The whole world is saved (redeemed), but all are not aware. Jesus is the Savior of, not just for , all men, but has a special relationship with those who believe. Those who recognize and Acknowledge this truth have been given the message and ministry of reconciliation—the very Words and logic of God, to share with the unknowing an unbelieving world. (Romans 3:1-2 and 2Cor. 5:18-19)."
The key phrase here that he uses is "but all are not aware". Here is where it also be comes a problem due to the fact that salvation is now based upon awareness or knowledge. Understandably, we are all in the state of darkness until we come to an understanding of needing forgiveness from sin and accept Christ's death was meant for all of mankind which can be understood as a universality of Christ's death. However, the intention is not that all are currently in the state of salvation and simply not yet aware. This line of reasoning comes from arguments that has raged even from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Even the early church fathers struggled with this issue of salvation merely being a state of one's awareness. St. Irenaeus wrote extensively concerning this in "Against All Herisies", when he made his defence against, yes you guessed it: Gnosticism. Gnosticism is : "A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic - idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity , held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent" See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
At any rate, the belief that all is already saved but not yet fully aware of it is a dangerous pathway that can lead down the road of heresy. As for the text that Mr. Pearson uses of Romans 3:1-2, he insinuates that the idea of reconciliation to God has already been done through Christ. This sounds good, however it does not speak to the rest of the chapter which indicates that there is "none righteous, no not one"--words also found in : Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3 . The context reveals that although Christ died for all, none are righteous. Righteousness according to Paul comes through faith in Christ alone and that all have sinned i.e. verse 23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. (NASB) Therefore, having the state of forgivness is more than just a mere exhistance as a human being. Rather, it is a sate of being when one relies upon the work of Christ. Thus, all are not yet saved/redeemed/reconciled. See the next paragraph for more explanation of the word reconciliation.
As for 2 Cor 5:18-19, the bishop again zero's in only on the word of reconciliation within the text and fails to "include" verse 16-17 " 16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. " (NASB) --Here the author, Paul, attests to the obvious that Christ is no longer with us on the earth in fleshly form but in in 17 brings out the meaning of his message to the Romans that if anyone is "in" Christ, ἐν which is a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of a state of rest, which indicates that it is not an inclusive word but a word that indicates a state of being, meaning that one must rest in the righteousness of Christ to be counted righteous/redeemed/reconciled. The argument that is made in the text is that Christ has brought to us to reconciliation from a life of sin and death which was brought upon humanity through the sin of Adam i.e. "orrigional sin". We, as believers--those who have acknowldeged our state of sinfulness which kept us from God, and rest/rely upon Christ have now become ambassidors of reconciliation. Meaning that we as Christians have now been given the blessing of bringing others to reconciliation back to God through Christ from the state of sin.
All of this to say, that redemption/reconciliation/salvation only comes through reliance upon Christ and not just a mere aknowlegement that we are already saved/reconciled ect. Only by the His covering our sins via. his ulitimate sacrafice can one become the above i.e. saved through faith. Yes, salvation is available to all, however, all will not receive and some will be lost. We can discuss the issues of Theodicy later.
I hope that I have been clear in my presentation. I'm sure that I have missed something while I have been distracted by other things while typing this e-mail out. So, please respond with your concept of Soteriology.
Blessings;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are fewer matters more urgent in today's pluralistic culture than the issue of the centrality of the cross and the accurate articulation and expression of the Universal love of God toward all of humankind.
As stated in I John 2:2, "He, (Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only our sins [inclusion], but the sins of the whole world." The atonement of Christ for the sin of the world, was and is inclusive and is not limited to a few fortunate believers.
Does being "born-again" save us or does it simply bring to light a condition that already exists—wrought and bought by the blood of Jesus at Calvary? Does believing make you born-again or does being born-again make me a believer?
I think we in evangelical Christianity have ignored the Sovereignty of God and limited the scope and sweep of His great Love toward all. Scripture says, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" ( Romans 5:20)— He died once for all. (Romans 6:10 and 1 Pet. 3:18) And contrary to popular opinion, our belief systems and religious presuppositions do not invalidate or reverse the effectiveness or efficiency of the finished work of Calvary. (Rom. 3:3).
If death is automatic because of Adam, life is automatic because of Christ, without our vote or prior approval. As the disobedience of one man made us all sinners, by the obedience of one man we were all made righteous. (Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Cor. 15:22).
The whole world is saved (redeemed), but all are not aware. Jesus is the Savior of, not just for, all men, but has a special relationship with those who believe. Those who recognize and Acknowledge this truth have been given the message and ministry of reconciliation—the very Words and logic of God, to share with the unknowing an unbelieving world. (Romans 3:1-2 and 2Cor. 5:18-19).
I close with this quote sent to me by the VP of a major Christian publishing company; "...the Law of God condemns us all until, while we are still sinners, grace comes and liberates us from it's curse without a single condition attached; no improvements demanded, no promises extorted-just the extravagant, outrageous, hilarious absurdity of free grace and undying love."
Because all men were included in the finished work of Calvary, when all is said and done, ". . . every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD—the Savior of the world!" (Phil. 2:9-11)
Peace,Bishop Carlton D. Pearson
-----------------------------------------------------
Here are my, John Ritter's, commnets:
Ok, Ok, so I couldn't wait to give my thoughts...
First off, for those of you who are not familiar with the theological term "inclusion" let me first define the term so we are all on the same page. The word inclusion is also used synonymously with universal reconciliation which is different from Unitarian Universalist's who basically believe that there are many ways to God aside from Christianity.
At any rate, universalist's believe that Christ died for all humanity with the caveat that all are saved wheather they realize it or not and that there is no literal hell. Hell comes in the form of a daily hell due to living in this temporary life which is filled with pain and disappointment. Thus, hell becomes anything that is seen as a trial or suffering here on this earth.
Here is a couple of points that are from the "Christian Universalist website that gives further insight: http://www.christianuniversalist.org/beliefs.html
4.
We believe in the ultimate triumph of divine mercy and grace: that no being ever created will be condemned or allowed to suffer forever, but God has arranged through a benevolent plan of learning and growth for all souls to attain salvation, reconciliation, restoration, and reunion with the Source of All Being, in the fullness of the ages.
6.
We believe in miracles and mysterious spiritual phenomena, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which transcend materialistic views of reality.
7.
We believe that God's Holy Spirit has inspired numerous prophets, saints, philosophers, and mystics throughout history, in a variety of cultures and traditions; and that by reading the Bible and other great texts of spiritual and moral wisdom with a discerning mind, and meditating to connect to the Spirit within, we may all gain a greater understanding of truth, which should be applied for the betterment of ourselves and our world.
The reason that I mention the whole concept of universalism is due to the fact that Carlton Pearson embraces Universalist ideals. Although it be true that Christ died that none should perish or the universality of Christ death being made for the sacrifice of sin for all mankind, there will be those who will not make it into the new kingdom of heaven as described in the book of Revelations Ch. 20 verses 14-15 " 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyones name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. " (NASB) Although much of the book of Revelations can be seen as symbolic as it relates to eschatology as it reflects apocalyptic literature as was seen by the writings of Daniel, Jeremiah and so on; the concept that there is a hell that those who do not rely upon the righteousness of Christ will be lost.
Therefore, if one were to come to the believe that all mankind has now become "saved-redeemed-born/again" but not yet come to the "self-awareness" of that salvation/redemption as the universalists do, then one would have to disregard this portion of holy scripture which clearly points out that those who name are not written in the book will be cast into the lake of fire. Obviously the universalist would comment that the text here contains the word "if", which would indicate that it is possible that there could be no-one that would go there. However, consideration must be given to the context of the scripture used so that all would be cleared up. For the text is directly relating to those who are physicallly dead and who are being judged according to their deeds on earth. So, the word "if" that is in the text is really refering to those who are dead and according to their deeds have not trusted upon Christ for salvation then they will be lost to a firey eternity as stated above. He, John, is relating the scene that was being played out beofore him...that if those who were coming before God were not found in the book of life, then they would be discarded in the lake of fire.
Now on to the word "self awareness". Contained within the other e-mail that I sent, Mr. Pearson stated that, "The whole world is saved (redeemed), but all are not aware. Jesus is the Savior of, not just for , all men, but has a special relationship with those who believe. Those who recognize and Acknowledge this truth have been given the message and ministry of reconciliation—the very Words and logic of God, to share with the unknowing an unbelieving world. (Romans 3:1-2 and 2Cor. 5:18-19)."
The key phrase here that he uses is "but all are not aware". Here is where it also be comes a problem due to the fact that salvation is now based upon awareness or knowledge. Understandably, we are all in the state of darkness until we come to an understanding of needing forgiveness from sin and accept Christ's death was meant for all of mankind which can be understood as a universality of Christ's death. However, the intention is not that all are currently in the state of salvation and simply not yet aware. This line of reasoning comes from arguments that has raged even from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Even the early church fathers struggled with this issue of salvation merely being a state of one's awareness. St. Irenaeus wrote extensively concerning this in "Against All Herisies", when he made his defence against, yes you guessed it: Gnosticism. Gnosticism is : "A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic - idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity , held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent" See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
At any rate, the belief that all is already saved but not yet fully aware of it is a dangerous pathway that can lead down the road of heresy. As for the text that Mr. Pearson uses of Romans 3:1-2, he insinuates that the idea of reconciliation to God has already been done through Christ. This sounds good, however it does not speak to the rest of the chapter which indicates that there is "none righteous, no not one"--words also found in : Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3 . The context reveals that although Christ died for all, none are righteous. Righteousness according to Paul comes through faith in Christ alone and that all have sinned i.e. verse 23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. (NASB) Therefore, having the state of forgivness is more than just a mere exhistance as a human being. Rather, it is a sate of being when one relies upon the work of Christ. Thus, all are not yet saved/redeemed/reconciled. See the next paragraph for more explanation of the word reconciliation.
As for 2 Cor 5:18-19, the bishop again zero's in only on the word of reconciliation within the text and fails to "include" verse 16-17 " 16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. " (NASB) --Here the author, Paul, attests to the obvious that Christ is no longer with us on the earth in fleshly form but in in 17 brings out the meaning of his message to the Romans that if anyone is "in" Christ, ἐν which is a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of a state of rest, which indicates that it is not an inclusive word but a word that indicates a state of being, meaning that one must rest in the righteousness of Christ to be counted righteous/redeemed/reconciled. The argument that is made in the text is that Christ has brought to us to reconciliation from a life of sin and death which was brought upon humanity through the sin of Adam i.e. "orrigional sin". We, as believers--those who have acknowldeged our state of sinfulness which kept us from God, and rest/rely upon Christ have now become ambassidors of reconciliation. Meaning that we as Christians have now been given the blessing of bringing others to reconciliation back to God through Christ from the state of sin.
All of this to say, that redemption/reconciliation/salvation only comes through reliance upon Christ and not just a mere aknowlegement that we are already saved/reconciled ect. Only by the His covering our sins via. his ulitimate sacrafice can one become the above i.e. saved through faith. Yes, salvation is available to all, however, all will not receive and some will be lost. We can discuss the issues of Theodicy later.
I hope that I have been clear in my presentation. I'm sure that I have missed something while I have been distracted by other things while typing this e-mail out. So, please respond with your concept of Soteriology.
Blessings;
Christmas at Lackland..
Well, since I haven't posted in over a year, I thought I'd begin posting again. I've renamed the blog to reflect a more theological theme since I would like to begin discussions on a theological level, I will also post daily goings on in the fam.
Yesterday was a wonderful day, we were able to wake up the kids and surprise them with some gifts that were not under the tree. David got a new tricycle and Daniel a rip-stick. Suffice to say, they wore themselves out yesterday and were ready for bedtime that night.
Tomorrow begins another day back at the squadron and much needed catching up on paperwork on my training folders.
I'll post more tomorrow, in the mean time--have a blessed day.
Yesterday was a wonderful day, we were able to wake up the kids and surprise them with some gifts that were not under the tree. David got a new tricycle and Daniel a rip-stick. Suffice to say, they wore themselves out yesterday and were ready for bedtime that night.
Tomorrow begins another day back at the squadron and much needed catching up on paperwork on my training folders.
I'll post more tomorrow, in the mean time--have a blessed day.
Seminary Postings...
On this blog, I have decided to post my papers that I wrote during Seminary. My hope is that you will find it interesting reading and feel the urge to comment on the subjects discussed. As always these papers are copywrited and my not be used without the authors persmission. Have fun and enjoy!
Monday, July 31, 2006
National Evil/State Criminality
INRODUCTION
Christian resistance to a national evil or state criminal activity has been tossed back and forth for years as to whether one should or not. The questions that surround the Christian ethical decision between resistance and pacifism are difficult to ponder especially in how to implement either of the two within Christianity.[1] This topic will be the central focus of this paper.
The point at which this topic came to its flashpoint was surrounding World War II and the dictator known as Hitler. This paper will take a look at the troubles surrounding the church and her theologians at the time and attempt to come to some understanding of how and why they reacted with resistance and pacifism. At the center of the discussion will be the dictator that ruled over Germany known as Adolf Hitler. More on Hitler’s evil will be discussed later.
For now, one must consider what it is that presents a government or regime in such a way that it becomes viewed as being evil. The word evil can be described as something or someone causing harm or bringing about a threatening crisis to a person or a people ending in sorrow or distress.[2]
Evil then, when applied to a leader, government or regime, could then be considered a national evil. State criminality on the other hand could be the actions taken by said state toward those individuals whom get in the way of the agenda set forth by the state and are punished despite their innocence. This was played out through the Nazi party during World War II through the killing of millions of Jews.
State criminality, however, could also not be associated with a dictatorship or government that is not evil in its intentions. A country that decides to ignore or break some of its own laws or even international laws can also be seen as state criminality.[3] For the National Socialists Party, Nazi Party, this problem was solved by merely changing their laws to reflect their own actions, thereby justifying themselves in their own eyes. This, however, did not satisfy the international community or the church at large as will be discussed in the following pages. The task at hand to explain the concept of evil as it is understood within a national mindset.
National evil comes about through a process by which a state, a body of government, takes on ideologies that when followed through to its logical end produce evil. This evil as described above not only brings harm to the nation but to its people. For the Nazi party its appeal came through its economic reform and programmatic content through parades and grand ceremonies which hid its irrational ideas about unconditional subordination.[4]
The unconditional subordination of all citizens led to the demise of the will of the people and life for the Jews.
PACIFISM
One of the first things to come to mind when thinking of pacifism is passively ignoring a person or circumstance that is in a position of power in order to avoid harm or retaliation of said person or government. Such is a common misconception of what pacifism is and its intentions toward society at large. Pacifism is also a means of resistance which is done without violence. Landauer describes it as, “the moral principle that the use of force is wrong for any reason. This applies to both the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force.”[5]
There are many that come to mind that are seen as being pacifists, Martin Luther King Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer both are noted as being pacifists.
During World War II one of the first pacifists that come to the forefront of everyone’s mind is Dietrich Bonhoeffer as already stated.
Bonhoeffer in the early stages of his life was not accustomed to war. During his childhood, his parents had the perception of war as sometimes necessary but never really understood the impact that it had.[6] When Dietrich was eight and a half years old, his brother, Karl, was killed in WWI just two weeks after enlisting.[7] For Dietrich, this was a turning point for his views of war.
For Bonhoeffer, pacifism was more than just a means of ignoring war. Pacifism is also a means of conduct and a theory about the morality or ethic of war itself which is opposed to a Just War theory which will be considered later.[8]
As a backdrop to Bonhoeffer’s political actions, his theology played a crucial role in why he was hesitant to become involved in the political arena. The concept from Martin Luther’s distinction between religion and politics was the traditional view for most that ascribed to the Lutheran Church.[9]
Pacifism then creates a struggle within the individual, as it did for Bonhoeffer, whereas ethics become the focal point of what is right in God’s eyes as well as with the church or what is wrong. Ethical decisions then become the foundation of what matters most when considering what actions to take in regards to a national evil. Coming up against the cold reality of considering how one’s actions will affect the future is not an easy task. Seeing the consequences and how they will affect others is a part of the process of making sound ethical decisions.[10] In Bonhoeffer’s case it became a struggle between his Christian ethics and the state criminality.
During Bonhoeffer’s struggle, he maintained his pacifist views to the point he wrote The Cost Of Discipleship where he fleshed out his pacifistic theology. In this volume, Dietrich found himself face to face with loving his enemy and committing himself to the task. In the end, however, he broke with these views due to the overwhelming massacre of the Jews by Hitler and plotted for Hitler’s death. Bonhoeffer realized that he had to decide whether or not the love for his neighbor would allow him to justly sit by while they were being killed. For him, their innocence was just cause to resist the evil Hitler had brought upon his nation. That was his ethical decision.
For others such as Martin Luther King Jr., pacifism was also a way to affect social change. Like Bonhoeffer, King was attempting to use his pacifism through the art of loving his neighbor, to bring a nation to change its ideology. King saw the need for change within the heart of man that would eventually lead to freedom for his oppressed people. King saw that love in action was the rival of hate in retaliation. He felt that love and forgiveness was an absolute requirement for spiritual maturity and that the potential for human beauty is marred by a man’s retaliation.[11] King felt that the means to make effective change for his society was to resist passively. His pacifism was not welcomed by those who were in opposition to him as well as those who were some of his loyal followers. His opponents wanted him to shut up while his followers wanted him to act out in retaliation against the establishment. His pacifist ethic won out in the end.
King in comparison to Bonhoeffer had a deep appreciation for his government in seeing that change could occur. King, “could not ascribe to this negative view of government… he was endowed with a deep sense of community…that caused him to avoid individualism.”[12] This type of individualism he was speaking of would defeat the cause of freedom from oppression of the blacks by allowing violence to take over which would end the cause.
King saw a better America, whereas Bonhoeffer sought an end to the killing of the innocent and war through justice. Some, however, feel that peace is a misconception. Paul Tillich feels that the concept of a just peace is a, “moralistic arrogance of the concept of a just and durable peace in a situation in which tragedy and possibly grace…can be applied to the present disrupted world”[13] Tillich saw peace as only a temporary venture due to the world living under the curse of sin and the prophesied end to which it is destined. This would bring one to question how peace can be brought about without avoiding God’s plan. For pacifism, peace is about justice, justice is about bringing an end to oppression. In both Bonhoeffer and King’s case, peace was the goal through love; love of the neighbor, both of which saw the Sermon on the Mount as a testimony to how Christian love should abound. Tillich did, however, charge the German people to not allow justice to be destroyed since God is a just God and their rulers were fighting against Him made them unjust.[14] Therefore, if justice were allowed to fail, then God would not be seen as being just. This concept of justice was a difficult message to receive especially since revenge was on most people’s minds. Revenge brings violence in the mind of a pacifist which would defeat the purpose. The concept of violence is also another alternative to pacifism as an attempt to bring about justice and now will be considered.
RESISTANCE THROUGH VIOLENCE
Although pacifism is a means of resistance, it is done so by acts of non-violence. In opposition to pacifism, resistance through violence is another avenue to be considered when attempting to oppose a national or state sanctioned evil. Caution should be emphasized, however, due to the realization that when a religion is involved, it can become over zealous in its attempt to control populations. Donald Shriver says that, “if there has been any advancement in the theology of war, it has been among those of us who know that only in great ambiguity can Christians enlist in a war as crusade.”[15] What is meant is that there are different ways to fight against war, pacifism, crusades and a just war concept which will be looked at later. The crusades were a type of Christian militia who saw it as God’s will to promote violence in the name of the church’s advancement of control. This is dangerous in that it can be interpreted as God’s will, as mentioned above, thereby giving permission to kill at will those whom oppose the state.
Violence in opposition to that of an oppressor is not a new development upon the theological scene. In the times of the Old Testament, violence was at times mandated by God to the Hebrews for the securing of the nation. Examples of this can be seen in Joshua 6:21 “and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old (ASV).”[16] This would bring in to question the law which is against killing. Some biblical scholars see the term of kill within the context of the law as being related to murder not war. Gill explains it by saying, “killing of men in lawful war, or in defense of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law.”[17] War then could be seen as being justifiable as long as it is not done so in the realms of hate. In this sense then, the law should read: “Thou Shalt not murder.”
The Hebrews had the concept of God as being a war lord as David described him as the “Lord of Hosts.”[18] Seeing God in this light brings to mind one who is a conqueror of foreign lands. This is not true, however, according to Bultmann who sees the God of the Old Testament as ending in a “miscarriage because of its failure to break free from the empirical world.”[19] His argument is that the Old Testament is not seeing the eschatological transcendence of Christ upon the earth as a fulfillment of itself. Therefore, the concept of a warring God is no longer necessary for a new people of God. For Bultmann, the battle now is within the spiritual realms.
For those embedded within the cold stark regions of Europe who were faced with the aggression of Hitler’s evil war machine, the concept of fighting had become an anguish of inaction. France’s intellectuals agonized over their indecision to fight the Nazi war plow.[20]
For the most part, violence should be used only as an aid in the pursuit of peace and not a means of advancing the territories of a nation or state which is greed driven. Care must be also given to not be passé of the Christian response to evil that is perpetrated by others that result in death to the innocent. The Christian response should not place itself in the realm of being irrelevant. Khoder confirms this by stating, “In the abyss of annihilation, both of things and people, starting with those wreaking destruction, the true sin is insensibility.”[21] In this instance Khoder is making the point that one should not just stand by while others are destroying life and or property. Action must be taken, to not do so resulting in inaction is a sin. Therefore, one could conclude that if one were to take action against an aggressor that it would be justifiable in using violence as a means of defense.
Seeing this type of thought, many have come to the conclusion, such as Karl Barth, that war is certainly justifiable when an aggressor is totalitarian in his or her approach to taking control over the world and the church.
This concept known as just war has been debate over many years and will now be considered.
JUST WAR
In his Letter to Great Britain, Karl Barth underscores the realities of his world condition and foresaw the danger of the regime that was attempting to take over the world at the time. He knew the theology that had fostered the philosophical standing of Hitler’s agenda and knew natural theology that was the basis for his leadership was faulty and could lead to disaster.
In seeing the coming disaster, Barth warned the Christians in Great Britain to take action. For Barth, fighting for the right is the righteous thing to do.[22] Barth became disgusted with the thought that Nazism should just be tolerated. He showed where tolerance was used in the past allowed for the Nazi party to gain strength and become more aggressive in advancing its philosophies toward morals, justice and society at large. Tolerance, in the eyes of Barth, toward such brutality of leadership was considered “unchristian.”[23]
Later as Hitler appointed himself the leader of the German Church, Barth saw where the Nazi party became the head of the church instead of Christ. Barth felt that only Jesus Christ is the one true head of the church with all authority.[24]
Akin to Barth’s understanding of the justification of using violence as a means to oppose a national evil is the Institute for American Values who believe that, “Yet reason and careful moral reflection also teaches us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it.”[25] Obviously, it is imperative that careful consideration is given before enacting war upon a nation. All possible avenues must be sought in order to affect change of an aggressing state or nation so that the terrible results that war can bring are averted. There are times, however, that war cannot be averted. Kant felt the same way in seeing that there are universal values that, “only the war that one nation would want other nations to wage can be just.”[26] In other words, when a nation rises itself up to wage war desiring other nations to follow suit, then those nations who oppose the nation initiating the war are considered justified. One then could conclude that justification then in Kant’s eyes would say that if a nation is un-provokingly attacked by another nation, then the victim nation is wholly justified to retaliate to bring justice. Retaliation then would be then, could also be seen as revenge. Here again caution must be given in the careful reflection on how to respond to such an event so that vengeance is not the motivating factor. Justice on the other hand must be the means used as deterrence against such an event that the offending nation should not be allowed to continue the perpetuation of evil.
One must always be mindful and be clear of what the definition of evil is in regards to state criminality or national evil as stated at the beginning of this paper. To redefine evil to fit what agenda a government has to promote itself justification of war and violence would be taking the forms used by that of a fascist type of government just as the Nazi party did before the Second World War. Doing so, would be nothing more than Nihilism.
Others like Michael Ignatieff, see the justification of war as being a necessity of two evils. According to Ignatieff, the use of coercive force of a democratic nation during times of emergencies as well as normal times is regarded as being the lesser of two evils.[27] War then is justifiable, yet still evil as seen by Ignatieff. So it would be safe to reason that even though it is not an acceptable thing, war being an evil, is an appropriate alternative to defending one’s nation or family against evil itself. Violence then, according to Gill, “cannot be divorced from ethical considerations that arise from the way power is exercised by national governments.”[28] War then is also seen as being a struggle between national powers that are fighting for control. Yes, it is a possible trap for a state or nation to fall into when international status is at stake; however, the struggle for power should not be used as a means when considering the use of force as the basis for war. War should only be used for the protection of the innocent and a deterrence of evil.
The debate on how national evil has come about is a difficult one. Derfler sees the debate as having, “run all the way from a primitive bad-man theory to the ‘moral crisis of our time’ kind of argument.”[29] In either case, the justification for fighting against such is the focus here.
In some cases, the use of religion is used to aid the cause for a position of not fighting as stated earlier. Doing so, by using the argument of being non-judgmental, can also give one or a nation a false sense of righteousness. Arendt sees this as a farce. She says that, “There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging that has nothing whatever to do with the biblical ‘Judge not, that ye be judged’…behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent.”[30] To not give a judgment then is to accept the evil as being a valid point of view and should be allowed to continue and not stop it from doing harm. This kind of topsey turvey thinking would not have stopped Hitler, Mussolini or others who would have taken over the entire world. Therefore, the Just War theory is necessary for carrying out an armed conflict.
The concept of Just War however, is not a new one. Johnson mentions that, “The just war tradition came into being in the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community.”[31] Augustine saw war as being used in the divine purposes of God. Langan agrees by stating that, “Augustine interprets war along lines inspired by the Old Testament as both an element in religious pedagogy and an exercise in divine power and judgment.”[32] Since Augustine saw the government as being a divine arm of God, then the decision of going to war was a justifiable event.
During the early stages of World War II, people were forced into labor camps and beaten by the German Nazi’s. This is what helped make the decision for some like Gabriel Tempkin to fight against the regime. Tempken recalls, “German soldiers cursing, yelling and screaming at us …forcing us to sing to muffle the screams of people beaten as they were going through customs checks.”[33]
It is estimated that during the genocide of the Jewish people during World War II that upwards of six million people were systematically killed.[34] The holocaust is but one example of the terrible evil that must be resisted. All forms of genocide are not acceptable in any form or fashion.
CONCLUSION
Within the confines of these few pages, it is difficult to do the subject justice with the amount of literature that is available on the subject. Much ink has been spilled on how to determine if war can be justified and if violence is even a viable answer to resist state criminality or national evil. One thing is clear; however, the problem of theodicy will always haunt humanity until the day of Christ’s return. Knowing this, however, does not help the Christian to develop a moral basis on how one is to react against an evil nation or state actions. To do so is to rely upon an understanding of biblical principles and a code of ethics which is needed to maintain a consistent Christian character. Trull sees character as, “a synthesizing the ideal person we ought to be with the real person we are capable of becoming. It all begins with the development of the inner life—something called character.”[35] The whole of humanity is in a struggle with seeing what is the ideal and comes to face with reality, the reality of sin. Due to the restraints in place upon the human race, the power struggle between good and evil will always exist until God puts an end to it when Christ returns.
As one can see, the struggle against state criminality and national evil is a long and historical one. Although, there are a myriad of ways to resist it whether it be through the eyes of pacifism or the act of resistance through Just War, evil must be resisted in order that justice and good prevail. In both cases of pacifism and just war, resistance is used in an attempt to achieve the goal of freedom from evil. It is the opinion of this author that there are times for both. One must be in total submission to Christ to be ready for His direction in what type of action to take as evidenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. On the other hand, the Christian should also be alert to what is happening in his or her world as it relates to governments and state activities as attested to by Karl Barth. Both of these theologians have valid points to consider when reflecting on what actions to take being done so in prayer. “By prayer we acknowledge God’s power and goodness, and our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything.”[36]
In conclusion, both resistance through pacifism and resistance through Just War are acceptable. Resistance through violence, however, must be done through the same careful principles which are used to determine if war is justified. All forms of resistance must be given thought through the direction of the Holy Spirit with a great amount of prayer and humility before God. War is never a light decision to be made. Richard Foster believes that, “He who is the Way shows us the way to live so that we increasingly come to share his love, hope, feelings, and habits. He agrees to be yoked to us, as we are yoked to him, and to train us in how to live our lives as he would live them if he were in our place.”[37]
For Bonhoeffer pacifism was a calling, for Barth war was a responsibility. Both were correct in their actions. Christians must be open to both means of resistance when it comes to evil. In either case, God will prevail, but it is up to the Christian to follow his promptings.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover these precious values: that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.”[38]
Works Cited
American Standard Version. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Ansbro John, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change. NY: Madison Books, 2000.
Arendt Hannah, Responsibility and Judgment. NY: Schocken Books, 2003.
Barth Karl, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland. Eugene, Oregon, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.
Barth Karl, Credo. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
Bonhoeffer Dietrich, The Cost Of Discipleship. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Brustein William, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Derfler Leslie, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990.
Gill David, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate. Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980.
Gill John, Exposition Of The Entire Bible. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Hanna Martha, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Hanson Paul, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible. Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984.
Ignatieff Michael, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Johnson James, Just War As It Was, And Now Is. First Things Journal, 149 January 2005.
Josephson Michael, Making Ethical Decisions. Edited by Wes Hanson. Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002.
Khoder Georges, Violence and the Gospel. Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988.
King Martin Luther Jr., A Knock At Midnight. NY: Warner Books, 1998.
King Martin Luther Jr., Strength To Love. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981.
Kramer Ronald C., Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
Landauer Jeff, Pacifism. [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
Langan John, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory. Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984.
Nation Mark, Pacifist and Enemy of the State. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991.
Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia. [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian. [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
Roberts Deotis, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005.
Shriver Donald Jr., Violence For Peace. Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998.
Sonek Barbara, Horrors of Holocaust. [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
Swaim J. Carter, War, Peace and the Bible. NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Teichman Jenny, Pacifism and the Just War. NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986.
Temes Peter S., The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time. Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003.
Tillich Paul, Against The Third Reich. Edited By Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1980.
Tillich Paul, Theology Of Peace. Edited by Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990.
Tempkin Gabriel, My Just War, Novato. CA: Presidio Press, 1998.
Trull James, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004.
War: Opposing Viewpoints. Edited by Louis Gerdes, Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005.
Webster’s Universal English Dictionary. New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005.
[1]Deotis Roberts, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005), 6.
[2]Webster’s Universal English Dictionary, (New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005), 130.
[3]Ronald C. Kramer, Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama, (Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture) [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
[4] William Brustein, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 4.
[5]Jeff Landauer, Pacifism, [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
[6]Mark Nation, Pacifist and Enemy of the State, (Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991), 61-77.
[7]Ibid, 62.
[8]Jenny Teichman, Pacifism and the Just War, (NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986), x.
[9]Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost Of Discipleship, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 29.
[10]Michael Josephson, Making Ethical Decisions, Edited by Wes Hanson, (Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002), 25.
[11]Martin Luther King Jr., Strength To Love, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981), 41.
[12]John Ansbro, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change, (NY: Madison Books, 2000), 113.
[13]Paul Tillich, Theology Of Peace, Edited by Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 87.
[14]Paul Tillich, Against The Third Reich, Edited By Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 19980, 28.
[15]Donald Shriver Jr., Violence For Peace, (Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998), 4.
[16]American Standard Version, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[17]John Gill, Exposition Of The Entire Bible, (, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[18]J. Carter Swaim, War, Peace And The Bible, (NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 5.
[19]Paul Hanson, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible, (Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984), 341-362.
[20]Martha Hanna, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 51.
[21]Georges Khoder, Violence and the Gospel,(Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988), 404.
[22]Karl Barth, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland, Eugene, Oregon, (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 4.
[23]Ibid, 6.
[24] Karl Barth, Credo, (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962), 54.
[25]War: Opposing Viewpoints, Edited by Louis Gerdes, (Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005), 100.
[26]Peter S. Temes, The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time, (Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003), 180.
[27]Michael Ignatieff, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), viif.
[28]David Gill, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate, (Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980), 28.
[29]Leslie Derfler, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History, (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990), 141.
[30]Hannah Arendt, Responsibility and Judgment, (NY: Schocken Books, 2003), 19.
[31]James Johnson, Just War As It Was, And Now Is, (First Things Journal, 149 January 2005), 14.
[32]John Langan, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory, (Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984), 22.
[33]Gabriel Tempkin, My Just War, (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1998), 12.
[34]Barbara Sonek, Horrors Of Holocaust, [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
[35]James Trull, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004), 47.
[36]Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
[37]Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian, [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
[38]Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock At Midnight, (NY: Warner Books, 1998), 19.
Christian resistance to a national evil or state criminal activity has been tossed back and forth for years as to whether one should or not. The questions that surround the Christian ethical decision between resistance and pacifism are difficult to ponder especially in how to implement either of the two within Christianity.[1] This topic will be the central focus of this paper.
The point at which this topic came to its flashpoint was surrounding World War II and the dictator known as Hitler. This paper will take a look at the troubles surrounding the church and her theologians at the time and attempt to come to some understanding of how and why they reacted with resistance and pacifism. At the center of the discussion will be the dictator that ruled over Germany known as Adolf Hitler. More on Hitler’s evil will be discussed later.
For now, one must consider what it is that presents a government or regime in such a way that it becomes viewed as being evil. The word evil can be described as something or someone causing harm or bringing about a threatening crisis to a person or a people ending in sorrow or distress.[2]
Evil then, when applied to a leader, government or regime, could then be considered a national evil. State criminality on the other hand could be the actions taken by said state toward those individuals whom get in the way of the agenda set forth by the state and are punished despite their innocence. This was played out through the Nazi party during World War II through the killing of millions of Jews.
State criminality, however, could also not be associated with a dictatorship or government that is not evil in its intentions. A country that decides to ignore or break some of its own laws or even international laws can also be seen as state criminality.[3] For the National Socialists Party, Nazi Party, this problem was solved by merely changing their laws to reflect their own actions, thereby justifying themselves in their own eyes. This, however, did not satisfy the international community or the church at large as will be discussed in the following pages. The task at hand to explain the concept of evil as it is understood within a national mindset.
National evil comes about through a process by which a state, a body of government, takes on ideologies that when followed through to its logical end produce evil. This evil as described above not only brings harm to the nation but to its people. For the Nazi party its appeal came through its economic reform and programmatic content through parades and grand ceremonies which hid its irrational ideas about unconditional subordination.[4]
The unconditional subordination of all citizens led to the demise of the will of the people and life for the Jews.
PACIFISM
One of the first things to come to mind when thinking of pacifism is passively ignoring a person or circumstance that is in a position of power in order to avoid harm or retaliation of said person or government. Such is a common misconception of what pacifism is and its intentions toward society at large. Pacifism is also a means of resistance which is done without violence. Landauer describes it as, “the moral principle that the use of force is wrong for any reason. This applies to both the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force.”[5]
There are many that come to mind that are seen as being pacifists, Martin Luther King Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer both are noted as being pacifists.
During World War II one of the first pacifists that come to the forefront of everyone’s mind is Dietrich Bonhoeffer as already stated.
Bonhoeffer in the early stages of his life was not accustomed to war. During his childhood, his parents had the perception of war as sometimes necessary but never really understood the impact that it had.[6] When Dietrich was eight and a half years old, his brother, Karl, was killed in WWI just two weeks after enlisting.[7] For Dietrich, this was a turning point for his views of war.
For Bonhoeffer, pacifism was more than just a means of ignoring war. Pacifism is also a means of conduct and a theory about the morality or ethic of war itself which is opposed to a Just War theory which will be considered later.[8]
As a backdrop to Bonhoeffer’s political actions, his theology played a crucial role in why he was hesitant to become involved in the political arena. The concept from Martin Luther’s distinction between religion and politics was the traditional view for most that ascribed to the Lutheran Church.[9]
Pacifism then creates a struggle within the individual, as it did for Bonhoeffer, whereas ethics become the focal point of what is right in God’s eyes as well as with the church or what is wrong. Ethical decisions then become the foundation of what matters most when considering what actions to take in regards to a national evil. Coming up against the cold reality of considering how one’s actions will affect the future is not an easy task. Seeing the consequences and how they will affect others is a part of the process of making sound ethical decisions.[10] In Bonhoeffer’s case it became a struggle between his Christian ethics and the state criminality.
During Bonhoeffer’s struggle, he maintained his pacifist views to the point he wrote The Cost Of Discipleship where he fleshed out his pacifistic theology. In this volume, Dietrich found himself face to face with loving his enemy and committing himself to the task. In the end, however, he broke with these views due to the overwhelming massacre of the Jews by Hitler and plotted for Hitler’s death. Bonhoeffer realized that he had to decide whether or not the love for his neighbor would allow him to justly sit by while they were being killed. For him, their innocence was just cause to resist the evil Hitler had brought upon his nation. That was his ethical decision.
For others such as Martin Luther King Jr., pacifism was also a way to affect social change. Like Bonhoeffer, King was attempting to use his pacifism through the art of loving his neighbor, to bring a nation to change its ideology. King saw the need for change within the heart of man that would eventually lead to freedom for his oppressed people. King saw that love in action was the rival of hate in retaliation. He felt that love and forgiveness was an absolute requirement for spiritual maturity and that the potential for human beauty is marred by a man’s retaliation.[11] King felt that the means to make effective change for his society was to resist passively. His pacifism was not welcomed by those who were in opposition to him as well as those who were some of his loyal followers. His opponents wanted him to shut up while his followers wanted him to act out in retaliation against the establishment. His pacifist ethic won out in the end.
King in comparison to Bonhoeffer had a deep appreciation for his government in seeing that change could occur. King, “could not ascribe to this negative view of government… he was endowed with a deep sense of community…that caused him to avoid individualism.”[12] This type of individualism he was speaking of would defeat the cause of freedom from oppression of the blacks by allowing violence to take over which would end the cause.
King saw a better America, whereas Bonhoeffer sought an end to the killing of the innocent and war through justice. Some, however, feel that peace is a misconception. Paul Tillich feels that the concept of a just peace is a, “moralistic arrogance of the concept of a just and durable peace in a situation in which tragedy and possibly grace…can be applied to the present disrupted world”[13] Tillich saw peace as only a temporary venture due to the world living under the curse of sin and the prophesied end to which it is destined. This would bring one to question how peace can be brought about without avoiding God’s plan. For pacifism, peace is about justice, justice is about bringing an end to oppression. In both Bonhoeffer and King’s case, peace was the goal through love; love of the neighbor, both of which saw the Sermon on the Mount as a testimony to how Christian love should abound. Tillich did, however, charge the German people to not allow justice to be destroyed since God is a just God and their rulers were fighting against Him made them unjust.[14] Therefore, if justice were allowed to fail, then God would not be seen as being just. This concept of justice was a difficult message to receive especially since revenge was on most people’s minds. Revenge brings violence in the mind of a pacifist which would defeat the purpose. The concept of violence is also another alternative to pacifism as an attempt to bring about justice and now will be considered.
RESISTANCE THROUGH VIOLENCE
Although pacifism is a means of resistance, it is done so by acts of non-violence. In opposition to pacifism, resistance through violence is another avenue to be considered when attempting to oppose a national or state sanctioned evil. Caution should be emphasized, however, due to the realization that when a religion is involved, it can become over zealous in its attempt to control populations. Donald Shriver says that, “if there has been any advancement in the theology of war, it has been among those of us who know that only in great ambiguity can Christians enlist in a war as crusade.”[15] What is meant is that there are different ways to fight against war, pacifism, crusades and a just war concept which will be looked at later. The crusades were a type of Christian militia who saw it as God’s will to promote violence in the name of the church’s advancement of control. This is dangerous in that it can be interpreted as God’s will, as mentioned above, thereby giving permission to kill at will those whom oppose the state.
Violence in opposition to that of an oppressor is not a new development upon the theological scene. In the times of the Old Testament, violence was at times mandated by God to the Hebrews for the securing of the nation. Examples of this can be seen in Joshua 6:21 “and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old (ASV).”[16] This would bring in to question the law which is against killing. Some biblical scholars see the term of kill within the context of the law as being related to murder not war. Gill explains it by saying, “killing of men in lawful war, or in defense of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law.”[17] War then could be seen as being justifiable as long as it is not done so in the realms of hate. In this sense then, the law should read: “Thou Shalt not murder.”
The Hebrews had the concept of God as being a war lord as David described him as the “Lord of Hosts.”[18] Seeing God in this light brings to mind one who is a conqueror of foreign lands. This is not true, however, according to Bultmann who sees the God of the Old Testament as ending in a “miscarriage because of its failure to break free from the empirical world.”[19] His argument is that the Old Testament is not seeing the eschatological transcendence of Christ upon the earth as a fulfillment of itself. Therefore, the concept of a warring God is no longer necessary for a new people of God. For Bultmann, the battle now is within the spiritual realms.
For those embedded within the cold stark regions of Europe who were faced with the aggression of Hitler’s evil war machine, the concept of fighting had become an anguish of inaction. France’s intellectuals agonized over their indecision to fight the Nazi war plow.[20]
For the most part, violence should be used only as an aid in the pursuit of peace and not a means of advancing the territories of a nation or state which is greed driven. Care must be also given to not be passé of the Christian response to evil that is perpetrated by others that result in death to the innocent. The Christian response should not place itself in the realm of being irrelevant. Khoder confirms this by stating, “In the abyss of annihilation, both of things and people, starting with those wreaking destruction, the true sin is insensibility.”[21] In this instance Khoder is making the point that one should not just stand by while others are destroying life and or property. Action must be taken, to not do so resulting in inaction is a sin. Therefore, one could conclude that if one were to take action against an aggressor that it would be justifiable in using violence as a means of defense.
Seeing this type of thought, many have come to the conclusion, such as Karl Barth, that war is certainly justifiable when an aggressor is totalitarian in his or her approach to taking control over the world and the church.
This concept known as just war has been debate over many years and will now be considered.
JUST WAR
In his Letter to Great Britain, Karl Barth underscores the realities of his world condition and foresaw the danger of the regime that was attempting to take over the world at the time. He knew the theology that had fostered the philosophical standing of Hitler’s agenda and knew natural theology that was the basis for his leadership was faulty and could lead to disaster.
In seeing the coming disaster, Barth warned the Christians in Great Britain to take action. For Barth, fighting for the right is the righteous thing to do.[22] Barth became disgusted with the thought that Nazism should just be tolerated. He showed where tolerance was used in the past allowed for the Nazi party to gain strength and become more aggressive in advancing its philosophies toward morals, justice and society at large. Tolerance, in the eyes of Barth, toward such brutality of leadership was considered “unchristian.”[23]
Later as Hitler appointed himself the leader of the German Church, Barth saw where the Nazi party became the head of the church instead of Christ. Barth felt that only Jesus Christ is the one true head of the church with all authority.[24]
Akin to Barth’s understanding of the justification of using violence as a means to oppose a national evil is the Institute for American Values who believe that, “Yet reason and careful moral reflection also teaches us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it.”[25] Obviously, it is imperative that careful consideration is given before enacting war upon a nation. All possible avenues must be sought in order to affect change of an aggressing state or nation so that the terrible results that war can bring are averted. There are times, however, that war cannot be averted. Kant felt the same way in seeing that there are universal values that, “only the war that one nation would want other nations to wage can be just.”[26] In other words, when a nation rises itself up to wage war desiring other nations to follow suit, then those nations who oppose the nation initiating the war are considered justified. One then could conclude that justification then in Kant’s eyes would say that if a nation is un-provokingly attacked by another nation, then the victim nation is wholly justified to retaliate to bring justice. Retaliation then would be then, could also be seen as revenge. Here again caution must be given in the careful reflection on how to respond to such an event so that vengeance is not the motivating factor. Justice on the other hand must be the means used as deterrence against such an event that the offending nation should not be allowed to continue the perpetuation of evil.
One must always be mindful and be clear of what the definition of evil is in regards to state criminality or national evil as stated at the beginning of this paper. To redefine evil to fit what agenda a government has to promote itself justification of war and violence would be taking the forms used by that of a fascist type of government just as the Nazi party did before the Second World War. Doing so, would be nothing more than Nihilism.
Others like Michael Ignatieff, see the justification of war as being a necessity of two evils. According to Ignatieff, the use of coercive force of a democratic nation during times of emergencies as well as normal times is regarded as being the lesser of two evils.[27] War then is justifiable, yet still evil as seen by Ignatieff. So it would be safe to reason that even though it is not an acceptable thing, war being an evil, is an appropriate alternative to defending one’s nation or family against evil itself. Violence then, according to Gill, “cannot be divorced from ethical considerations that arise from the way power is exercised by national governments.”[28] War then is also seen as being a struggle between national powers that are fighting for control. Yes, it is a possible trap for a state or nation to fall into when international status is at stake; however, the struggle for power should not be used as a means when considering the use of force as the basis for war. War should only be used for the protection of the innocent and a deterrence of evil.
The debate on how national evil has come about is a difficult one. Derfler sees the debate as having, “run all the way from a primitive bad-man theory to the ‘moral crisis of our time’ kind of argument.”[29] In either case, the justification for fighting against such is the focus here.
In some cases, the use of religion is used to aid the cause for a position of not fighting as stated earlier. Doing so, by using the argument of being non-judgmental, can also give one or a nation a false sense of righteousness. Arendt sees this as a farce. She says that, “There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging that has nothing whatever to do with the biblical ‘Judge not, that ye be judged’…behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent.”[30] To not give a judgment then is to accept the evil as being a valid point of view and should be allowed to continue and not stop it from doing harm. This kind of topsey turvey thinking would not have stopped Hitler, Mussolini or others who would have taken over the entire world. Therefore, the Just War theory is necessary for carrying out an armed conflict.
The concept of Just War however, is not a new one. Johnson mentions that, “The just war tradition came into being in the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community.”[31] Augustine saw war as being used in the divine purposes of God. Langan agrees by stating that, “Augustine interprets war along lines inspired by the Old Testament as both an element in religious pedagogy and an exercise in divine power and judgment.”[32] Since Augustine saw the government as being a divine arm of God, then the decision of going to war was a justifiable event.
During the early stages of World War II, people were forced into labor camps and beaten by the German Nazi’s. This is what helped make the decision for some like Gabriel Tempkin to fight against the regime. Tempken recalls, “German soldiers cursing, yelling and screaming at us …forcing us to sing to muffle the screams of people beaten as they were going through customs checks.”[33]
It is estimated that during the genocide of the Jewish people during World War II that upwards of six million people were systematically killed.[34] The holocaust is but one example of the terrible evil that must be resisted. All forms of genocide are not acceptable in any form or fashion.
CONCLUSION
Within the confines of these few pages, it is difficult to do the subject justice with the amount of literature that is available on the subject. Much ink has been spilled on how to determine if war can be justified and if violence is even a viable answer to resist state criminality or national evil. One thing is clear; however, the problem of theodicy will always haunt humanity until the day of Christ’s return. Knowing this, however, does not help the Christian to develop a moral basis on how one is to react against an evil nation or state actions. To do so is to rely upon an understanding of biblical principles and a code of ethics which is needed to maintain a consistent Christian character. Trull sees character as, “a synthesizing the ideal person we ought to be with the real person we are capable of becoming. It all begins with the development of the inner life—something called character.”[35] The whole of humanity is in a struggle with seeing what is the ideal and comes to face with reality, the reality of sin. Due to the restraints in place upon the human race, the power struggle between good and evil will always exist until God puts an end to it when Christ returns.
As one can see, the struggle against state criminality and national evil is a long and historical one. Although, there are a myriad of ways to resist it whether it be through the eyes of pacifism or the act of resistance through Just War, evil must be resisted in order that justice and good prevail. In both cases of pacifism and just war, resistance is used in an attempt to achieve the goal of freedom from evil. It is the opinion of this author that there are times for both. One must be in total submission to Christ to be ready for His direction in what type of action to take as evidenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. On the other hand, the Christian should also be alert to what is happening in his or her world as it relates to governments and state activities as attested to by Karl Barth. Both of these theologians have valid points to consider when reflecting on what actions to take being done so in prayer. “By prayer we acknowledge God’s power and goodness, and our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything.”[36]
In conclusion, both resistance through pacifism and resistance through Just War are acceptable. Resistance through violence, however, must be done through the same careful principles which are used to determine if war is justified. All forms of resistance must be given thought through the direction of the Holy Spirit with a great amount of prayer and humility before God. War is never a light decision to be made. Richard Foster believes that, “He who is the Way shows us the way to live so that we increasingly come to share his love, hope, feelings, and habits. He agrees to be yoked to us, as we are yoked to him, and to train us in how to live our lives as he would live them if he were in our place.”[37]
For Bonhoeffer pacifism was a calling, for Barth war was a responsibility. Both were correct in their actions. Christians must be open to both means of resistance when it comes to evil. In either case, God will prevail, but it is up to the Christian to follow his promptings.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover these precious values: that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.”[38]
Works Cited
American Standard Version. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Ansbro John, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change. NY: Madison Books, 2000.
Arendt Hannah, Responsibility and Judgment. NY: Schocken Books, 2003.
Barth Karl, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland. Eugene, Oregon, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.
Barth Karl, Credo. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
Bonhoeffer Dietrich, The Cost Of Discipleship. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Brustein William, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Derfler Leslie, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990.
Gill David, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate. Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980.
Gill John, Exposition Of The Entire Bible. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Hanna Martha, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Hanson Paul, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible. Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984.
Ignatieff Michael, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Johnson James, Just War As It Was, And Now Is. First Things Journal, 149 January 2005.
Josephson Michael, Making Ethical Decisions. Edited by Wes Hanson. Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002.
Khoder Georges, Violence and the Gospel. Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988.
King Martin Luther Jr., A Knock At Midnight. NY: Warner Books, 1998.
King Martin Luther Jr., Strength To Love. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981.
Kramer Ronald C., Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
Landauer Jeff, Pacifism. [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
Langan John, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory. Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984.
Nation Mark, Pacifist and Enemy of the State. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991.
Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia. [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian. [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
Roberts Deotis, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005.
Shriver Donald Jr., Violence For Peace. Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998.
Sonek Barbara, Horrors of Holocaust. [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
Swaim J. Carter, War, Peace and the Bible. NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Teichman Jenny, Pacifism and the Just War. NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986.
Temes Peter S., The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time. Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003.
Tillich Paul, Against The Third Reich. Edited By Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1980.
Tillich Paul, Theology Of Peace. Edited by Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990.
Tempkin Gabriel, My Just War, Novato. CA: Presidio Press, 1998.
Trull James, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004.
War: Opposing Viewpoints. Edited by Louis Gerdes, Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005.
Webster’s Universal English Dictionary. New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005.
[1]Deotis Roberts, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005), 6.
[2]Webster’s Universal English Dictionary, (New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005), 130.
[3]Ronald C. Kramer, Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama, (Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture) [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
[4] William Brustein, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 4.
[5]Jeff Landauer, Pacifism, [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
[6]Mark Nation, Pacifist and Enemy of the State, (Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991), 61-77.
[7]Ibid, 62.
[8]Jenny Teichman, Pacifism and the Just War, (NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986), x.
[9]Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost Of Discipleship, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 29.
[10]Michael Josephson, Making Ethical Decisions, Edited by Wes Hanson, (Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002), 25.
[11]Martin Luther King Jr., Strength To Love, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981), 41.
[12]John Ansbro, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change, (NY: Madison Books, 2000), 113.
[13]Paul Tillich, Theology Of Peace, Edited by Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 87.
[14]Paul Tillich, Against The Third Reich, Edited By Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 19980, 28.
[15]Donald Shriver Jr., Violence For Peace, (Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998), 4.
[16]American Standard Version, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[17]John Gill, Exposition Of The Entire Bible, (, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[18]J. Carter Swaim, War, Peace And The Bible, (NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 5.
[19]Paul Hanson, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible, (Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984), 341-362.
[20]Martha Hanna, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 51.
[21]Georges Khoder, Violence and the Gospel,(Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988), 404.
[22]Karl Barth, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland, Eugene, Oregon, (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 4.
[23]Ibid, 6.
[24] Karl Barth, Credo, (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962), 54.
[25]War: Opposing Viewpoints, Edited by Louis Gerdes, (Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005), 100.
[26]Peter S. Temes, The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time, (Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003), 180.
[27]Michael Ignatieff, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), viif.
[28]David Gill, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate, (Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980), 28.
[29]Leslie Derfler, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History, (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990), 141.
[30]Hannah Arendt, Responsibility and Judgment, (NY: Schocken Books, 2003), 19.
[31]James Johnson, Just War As It Was, And Now Is, (First Things Journal, 149 January 2005), 14.
[32]John Langan, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory, (Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984), 22.
[33]Gabriel Tempkin, My Just War, (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1998), 12.
[34]Barbara Sonek, Horrors Of Holocaust, [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
[35]James Trull, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004), 47.
[36]Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
[37]Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian, [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
[38]Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock At Midnight, (NY: Warner Books, 1998), 19.
Wisdom’s Role in Old Testament Theology
Introduction
Old Testament theology is an interesting study. Even though trends prior to the 1980’s seem to have ignored wisdom literature, many things can be learned from its insights. Some scholars have offered important insights into both the theology and of the sages and how it relates to the larger Biblical theology.[1]
Theology of the Old Testament refers to ancient Israel’s view and worship of God. Some have suggested that there are patterns of theology within the Old Testament text that relate to a view of God as being a type of warlord. This term alludes to how God would spare and protect the people of God at the same time sending them into war. This idea points to “The Lord is a man of war; the lord is his name” as a basis (Ex. 15:3). In this view, Yahweh is viewed as a warrior, one who brings a relationship to a weak, helpless people. Salvation is secured in the context of warfare and combat. In wonderful intervention Yahweh rescues his people when humanly speaking there is no hope.[2] Seeing Yahweh in this role as a warrior helped the ancients understand Him. The ancients knew who warriors were and what warriors did. This view is referred to as the pre-monarchy era before King Saul. It is here where the ancients could understand the other roles of Yahweh as well. Being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent helped them grasp him as a mighty God. While in their struggles and times of combat, Yahweh would reveal himself in these forms to his people.
The other roles allowed the ancients to see him in terms of covenantal loyalty. In ancient Hebrew they referred to the term Hesed (Ex. 15:13), which is a term that has a bigger meaning than just “mercy”. It also infers his loving-kindness in the context of a committed type of covenant. Here Yahweh leads the people who he has redeemed.[3]
Central to Martens understanding of Old Testament theology are three distinctive ways that Yahweh used in making his relationship known to his people –warrior in blessing, and the promise of land.
In the role of blessing, God revealed himself with covenantal blessings when the people were obedient to his covenantal guidelines. The description of that state of bliss and blessing is most readily given in the categories familiar to us from Exodus 5:22—6:8. [4]
Land was the third distinction that Martens mentions relating to the theme of promise. Here the promise is made to Abraham (Gen. 12:1 ff.) and to his descendants Isaac (26:3—4, 24) and Jacob (28:3,f., 13—15; 35:9—12). This theme is also taken up in his discourses to Moses (Ex. 33:1) then fulfilled in reality to Joshua (Jos. 23:15).
In the framing of Old Testament theology is a motif that is referred to as the creation perspective. In this view, the understanding of God as a creator was a major element in Israel’s cultic ways of expression of worship. Psalms 8 is a picture of an example of this understanding. The text mentions the heavens, sun and stars, birds of the air and so on. This creation motif is critical in understanding of the role that wisdom plays in Old Testament theology that will be discussed later.
Wisdom’s role in the Old Testament is described by Crenshaw as being “the reasoned search for specific ways to ensure personal well-being in everyday life, to make sense of extreme adversity and vexing anomalies, and embody it as wisdom.”[5] The wisdom literature in the Bible consists of texts that include this theme. The books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and various Psalms are considered the wisdom literature books. Others also include the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus that can be found in the Apocrypha.
The wisdom teaching that took place in these texts had the goal of formation of character. The goal was not only the transmission of knowledge to the future generations but also a teaching of a relational system. This relational system included husband-wife, parent-child and family in society. The instruction that took place generally took place in a family setting initially.
Wisdom is not exclusive only to the Israelites. Other cultures also had wisdom teachings or sayings that in some instances are very similar to that of the Old Testament wisdom texts. Many scholars have noted the similarities of “The Instruction of Amen-em-opet” and others to that of the teachings found in the book of Proverbs. The first chapter has been compared to Proverbs 22:17-18 where Amen-em-opet speaks of giving ear to what is said and placing it in the heart. This gives light to the idea that other ANE cultures also had wisdom teachings and sayings. Much ink could be and has been spilled on this subject and is not the goal of this paper. Wisdom is the subject at hand in light of Old Testament theology.
Wisdom in the Old Testament centers on experiential knowledge as mentioned by Von Rad. This element does present problems that Von Rad points out.
This experiential knowledge is, however not only a very complex entity, but also a very vulnerable one. And this cannot be otherwise, for it renders man an invaluable service in enabling him to function in his sphere of life other than as a complete stranger and puts him in the position of understanding that sphere of life, at least to a certain extent, as an ordered system. Such knowledge does not accrue to an individual, nor even to a generation.[6]
Wisdom is therefore a general collection of teachings of an entire nation and culture. Ancient Israel also participated in this collection of experiential data. The problem Von Rad speaks of is that wisdom is not inclusive to an individual but to a nation. The vulnerability comes from the testing of the wisdom itself through everyday trials. These trials of wisdom are found in the Old Testament in the form of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes which we will now discuss.
The role of wisdom in Job
In the book of Job, there was a prevailing understanding of one’s relationship to God being righteous or unrighteous derived by the end results of a person’s decision. If one was righteous then blessings would be a result of a person’s right standing with God. Wickedness conversely resulted in trials and sufferings. This is where Job is in juxtaposition to the theology of the day.
Wisdom theology in the book of Job said that if one adheres to the godly way of life, then one would be counted righteous. Such was not the case for Job. Job’s predicament was that he was a righteous man before God, yet he received suffering. This was contradictory to the teaching of wisdom because due to his righteousness he didn’t deserve suffering.
In this setting, “Job’s moral virtue and piety provide the basis for the dramatic movement in the story.”[7] It is here where the story begins. Job is unaware of the dialogue that takes place between hasatan and God. This hasatan referred to in Psalms.109:6, makes his way over the earth uncovering evil that he then takes to the divine judge. Here he takes the motivations of Job into question. “His accusation is that Job’s moral virtue and piety are inspired by self-interest: by currying divine favor Job experiences prosperity and is protected against misfortune.”[8] Wisdom is in essence placed on trial. When God saw that man was looking to wisdom as a means for the divine favor, this gave him an opportunity in his own wisdom to change the theology of man.
Job soon looses his family, wealth and ultimately his health. This places Job in opposition to his wisdom theology as mentioned earlier. He soon goes through the experiences of the bewilderment of the problem that takes place after the prologue in the book.
In the narrative section of the text, Job is greeted by his friends in an attempt to console his suffering. The friends conjecture that his piety is not where it should be. Job agrees with them that wickedness results in suffering. Job agues with the friends because he has done nothing wrong in the sight of God. All of the friends lecture Job to change his ways and return to righteous living. They missed the point God was trying to convey.
As the poetic Job encounters this intellectual crisis of faith, his major contention with both his narrative counterpart and the friends in the dialogues is over the explanation given to the breakdown in epistemological understanding and faithful expectations of the righteous.[9]
After a long and painful journey, Job maintains his faith and trust in God. He now demanded an answer to his question, “Why do the righteous suffer?” God finally decides to answer (Job 38).
Here is a humbling challenge that God gave to Job. After he had heaped up many hard questions upon him, he showed Job by his manifest ignorance in the works of nature, what an incompetent judge he was of the methods and designs of Providence.[10]
Wisdom and Creation in Job
God brings Job back to the beginning and allows creation to speak to him (Job 11: 7-9; 36:22-30, 37:2-16). Here God asks Job about the creative acts that took place without Job’s permission. God asks where he was when all of creation took place. These questions demonstrated to Job “that God could not be put in the wrong by man, nor could he be summoned before any court.” “Similarly, it was they who used as an argument against Job the incomprehensibility of the divine activity in creation.”[11] God makes his point that Job has no basis for questioning him and his sovereignty.
Summary of Wisdom in Job
In short, God used the wisdom teaching in the book to prove his point to humanity. Job was chosen by God to make it clear to humankind that the system failed. He is sovereign. Man’s right standing with him is not based on a system of trusting in wisdom to yield righteousness. For Job, it was. Faith and trust in God brought him into righteousness. Today placing faith and trust in God’s son Jesus Christ brings humanity to right relationship with the creator, Yahweh.
Role of Wisdom in Proverbs
Wisdom in Proverbs takes on a lively role. In the book, wisdom is given a personification as a woman. Here she is contrasted against the folly of the wicked along with an adulteress. More on this personification will be discussed later.
The point of the book is to bring people to an understanding of wisdom and implement it in their daily lives. “The wise man and the fool appear on almost every page of this book and we learn right away that the aim of these sages was to subtract from the number of fools and add to the number of the wise.”[12]
Wisdom’s concern was to also help man see that God was concerned with man’s whole life and that it also involved a total commitment. [13] The word discipline comes to mind when reading the text. The book tries to relate practical wisdom to humanity all the while incorporating self-discipline versus self-indulgence. Moderation is a theme that runs throughout the book relating to a lifestyle.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the book is to implement wisdom into daily life. To do so the sages used these proverbial sayings with a didactic method to incorporate wisdom into life.
Wisdom also takes on various literary forms. Several chiasms run throughout the book. The saying is the most general form used in Proverbs. Others include didactic proverbs, admonitions and prohibitions, numerical sayings, rhetorical questions, wisdom poems, controversy speech and disputation, confession and reflection.[14]
These various forms make the book a collection of sayings that all relate to the same theme, which is the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”[15] It is this theme that is the cohesive bond that holds true throughout its sayings.
The understanding that the fear of the Lord brings wisdom is the basis for all knowledge and wisdom. This fear that is spoken of relates to a reverential fear and not terror. Submission in worship is the desired attitude if one is to attain wisdom and knowledge. This acknowledges that all wisdom comes from God. Jacob points out that through the teaching of the fear of God, the young were taught to respect authority.[16] In doing so the teachers were instilling wisdom into the youth of their day. Jacob also mentioned that;
The wise, as dispensers of knowledge under its cognitive aspect, but especially under its practical aspect, are one of the channels through which God’s presence is communicated to men.[17]
Personification of Wisdom in Proverbs
The book of Proverbs gives wisdom a feminine form (Prov. 8:1-36). As mentioned earlier, this woman is contrasted to the wicked and the adulteress.
This is not to indicate that God is a woman, as some liberal theologians like to assert. On the contrary, this is a metaphorical use of the term to paint a picture, a picture of a woman to be sought after. Just as a young man pursues after the love of his life in hopes of marriage, he too must search to find wisdom. Fontaine mentions that these two pictures of the woman of wisdom and her evil twin, wisdom versus folly, are metaphorical poems used by the sages to make the point of wisdom teachings.[18]
Wisdom and Creation in Proverbs
Creation comes again as a theme that helps unite the wisdom literature books (Prov. 8:22-31). Here, wisdom is given another personification as creation. In this role, wisdom is placed before all that was from the beginning. “The Lord formed me in the beginning, before he created anything else. From ages past, I am. I existed be fore the earth began.”[19] Some scholars have indicated that this refers to the New Testament messiah, Jesus, where he is alluded to as being the firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15,17). This would make sense coming from a New Testament point of view.
Summary of Wisdom in Proverbs
The book of Proverbs is truly a masterpiece in the eyes of this author; the reason being that the end of the book is a description of the perfect wife. This picture is obviously representing a good find for a young man. Metaphorically speaking, the woman found is the end result of the pursuit of wisdom herself. After a lifelong search, longing for wisdom through the fear of the Lord, one finds her in the end. She is the prize lady wisdom.
Role of Wisdom in Ecclesiastes
The book of Ecclesiastes is another book considered to be part of the wisdom teachings. This book does have a tendency to be gloomy in nature but for a good reason. Wisdom here is challenged like in the book of Job.
The theological conversation of Proverbs and Job concerning the relationship of human behavior and divine purpose continues in the book of Ecclesiastes. Like Job, it presents a challenge to traditional theology. The book of Ecclesiastes questions the purpose of human existence. It asks, what gives lasting meaning to life? If everyone only dies in the end, what is the meaningful difference between righteousness and wickedness?[20]
In Ecclesiastes, the common thread that is throughout the book is the phrase “everything is meaningless.” Qoheleth, the author also known as the teacher, throughout his lifetime had taken various paths and found that they all led to the same end, Sheol. The end where he drew conclusions Qholeth found that all was futile. This word, meaningless, can be translated in various ways. Meaningless(ness), vanity, futility, emptiness, absurdity are a few ways the author uses the Hebrew word hebel. “The word is related to wind and mist, and in Ecclesiastes it is used for things that do not last, cannot be grasped, or are not worthwhile. There is no English word with the same range of meaning.”[21]
It seems that the author chose to take the pessimistic side of wisdom versus the more traditional positive way it was typically used. This pessimism can be also found in ancient Egypt writings in much the same way.
The purpose has been generally assumed to show the futility of the world over and against eternity meaning it is evangelistic in nature.[22] The teacher is trying to convey life is without meaning, therefore all one can do is enjoy to the fullest and trust God. It is necessary to mention that even though the author was discontented with the outcome of all of his work, toils and laborings, he still trusted God. God was never rejected nor blamed for the despair of humanity.
During the discourse of the book, the author takes the reader on a journey. This journey is an overview of his life and his life’s work while looking for life’s purpose. The teacher’s responses to these experiences come to an end with a negative response. This negative response is what leads the teacher to a similar predicament to that of Job. In the author’s eyes, the system of traditional wisdom leading to prosperity has failed. Wisdom again is placed in a juxtaposition, where the author, like Job, tries to find meaning.
Like job, the reader can find an overall movement from despair where “the dead are to be praised more than the living, and the unborn above either.”[23] The teacher faced the same conclusion that Job came to that the theological system had failed. It would seem that wisdom had failed in its attempt to keep man happy and prosperous. Such is not the case because wisdom is used in an interesting way as will be discussed later.
Summary of Wisdom in Ecclesiastes
Everything is meaningless (Eccl. 12:8). The teacher expresses his findings after reflecting on old age, death and the call to joy.[24] For wisdom it is a different outcome, as mentioned earlier. Here in the book of Ecclesiastes, the author wittingly used the negative tones to emphasize the true meaning of wisdom.
The book was written to those who were wise and educated. Using despair, the teacher drives home the point that life without God is futile. In the epilogue Qoheleth gives instruction to fear God and obey his commands (Eccl. 12:13). It is this same theme that holds the wisdom books together as a collection. In summation, the fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom.
Conclusion
Wisdom’s role in Old Testament theology takes on several different themes and roles. In the book of Proverbs it is a woman to search and long after resulting in blessings. In the book of Job wisdom is fleeting, leaving Job homeless and broken. Ecclesiastes sees wisdom as futile but in the end uses it to prove the point that without God, life is empty. The theme of creation in the wisdom books draws the readers back to the basic understanding that God is the beginning of all things where wisdom resides. Creation is used to remind humanity that God is man’s beginning. Wisdom in the Old Testament was used to instruct one how to become close to God at the same time calling for a new worldview.
In conclusion, wisdom’s ultimate goal is to direct humankind to trust in God not in a system; it is to have faith despite the circumstances, trials and sufferings life may put humans through. Fearing God is not the end but should be the beginning. This is the result of wisdom in the Old Testament.
Works Cited
Murphy, Roland and Elizabeth Huwiler. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.
Bandstra, Barry L. "Ecclesiastes." [Online]. “ Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible.” Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1999. Cited 5 May, 2003. Available from.
The Living Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.
Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.
Garrett, Duane E. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Edited by Ray E. Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1999.
Patterson, John. The Wisdom of Israel. Edited by F.F Bruce. New York, London: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary, Vol. III Job to Song of Solomon. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.
Perdue, Leo G. et al. In Search of Wisdom. Louisville, KY: Westminster, John Knox Press, 1993.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom & Creation the Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Wisdom In Isreal. Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom and Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1988.
Martens, Elmer, A. God's Design A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.
[1] Leo G Perdue., Wisdom & Creation the Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 20.
[2] Elmer Martens, A, God's Design A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, Apollos, 1994), 47.
[3] Martens, God's Design A Focus on Old Testament, 50.
[4] Ibid, 34.
[5] James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom and Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1988), 3.
[6] Gerhard Von Rad, Wisdom In Israel (Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974), 3.
[7] Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 83.
[8]Ibid, 82.
[9] Leo G Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 89.
[10] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary Vol. III Job to Song of Solomon (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co, ), 219.
[11] Gerhard Von Rad, Wisdom In Israel (Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974), 224 ff. here the author is referring to Job 34:10,12,17b; 11:7-9;36:22-30; 37:2-16.
[12] John Patterson, The Wisdom of Isreal, ed. F.F Bruce (London: Abingdon Press, 1962), 54.
[13]Ibid, 57.
[14] Garrett Duane E., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1999), 29ff.
[15] The Holy Bible, New King James Version (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), Proverbs 9:10.
[16] Jacob Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958), 252.
[17]Ibid, 253.
[18] Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 110.
[19] The Living Bible (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971), Proverbs 8:22-23.
[20] Barry L. Bandstra, "Ecclesiastes," [online] Reading the Old Testament, An Intorduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Co.1999, cited 5 May, 2003, available from.
[21] Elizabeth Huwiler, Murphy Roland, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 181.
[22] Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 271.
[23] Huwiler, New International Biblical Commentary, 191.
[24]Ibid, 215.
Old Testament theology is an interesting study. Even though trends prior to the 1980’s seem to have ignored wisdom literature, many things can be learned from its insights. Some scholars have offered important insights into both the theology and of the sages and how it relates to the larger Biblical theology.[1]
Theology of the Old Testament refers to ancient Israel’s view and worship of God. Some have suggested that there are patterns of theology within the Old Testament text that relate to a view of God as being a type of warlord. This term alludes to how God would spare and protect the people of God at the same time sending them into war. This idea points to “The Lord is a man of war; the lord is his name” as a basis (Ex. 15:3). In this view, Yahweh is viewed as a warrior, one who brings a relationship to a weak, helpless people. Salvation is secured in the context of warfare and combat. In wonderful intervention Yahweh rescues his people when humanly speaking there is no hope.[2] Seeing Yahweh in this role as a warrior helped the ancients understand Him. The ancients knew who warriors were and what warriors did. This view is referred to as the pre-monarchy era before King Saul. It is here where the ancients could understand the other roles of Yahweh as well. Being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent helped them grasp him as a mighty God. While in their struggles and times of combat, Yahweh would reveal himself in these forms to his people.
The other roles allowed the ancients to see him in terms of covenantal loyalty. In ancient Hebrew they referred to the term Hesed (Ex. 15:13), which is a term that has a bigger meaning than just “mercy”. It also infers his loving-kindness in the context of a committed type of covenant. Here Yahweh leads the people who he has redeemed.[3]
Central to Martens understanding of Old Testament theology are three distinctive ways that Yahweh used in making his relationship known to his people –warrior in blessing, and the promise of land.
In the role of blessing, God revealed himself with covenantal blessings when the people were obedient to his covenantal guidelines. The description of that state of bliss and blessing is most readily given in the categories familiar to us from Exodus 5:22—6:8. [4]
Land was the third distinction that Martens mentions relating to the theme of promise. Here the promise is made to Abraham (Gen. 12:1 ff.) and to his descendants Isaac (26:3—4, 24) and Jacob (28:3,f., 13—15; 35:9—12). This theme is also taken up in his discourses to Moses (Ex. 33:1) then fulfilled in reality to Joshua (Jos. 23:15).
In the framing of Old Testament theology is a motif that is referred to as the creation perspective. In this view, the understanding of God as a creator was a major element in Israel’s cultic ways of expression of worship. Psalms 8 is a picture of an example of this understanding. The text mentions the heavens, sun and stars, birds of the air and so on. This creation motif is critical in understanding of the role that wisdom plays in Old Testament theology that will be discussed later.
Wisdom’s role in the Old Testament is described by Crenshaw as being “the reasoned search for specific ways to ensure personal well-being in everyday life, to make sense of extreme adversity and vexing anomalies, and embody it as wisdom.”[5] The wisdom literature in the Bible consists of texts that include this theme. The books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and various Psalms are considered the wisdom literature books. Others also include the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus that can be found in the Apocrypha.
The wisdom teaching that took place in these texts had the goal of formation of character. The goal was not only the transmission of knowledge to the future generations but also a teaching of a relational system. This relational system included husband-wife, parent-child and family in society. The instruction that took place generally took place in a family setting initially.
Wisdom is not exclusive only to the Israelites. Other cultures also had wisdom teachings or sayings that in some instances are very similar to that of the Old Testament wisdom texts. Many scholars have noted the similarities of “The Instruction of Amen-em-opet” and others to that of the teachings found in the book of Proverbs. The first chapter has been compared to Proverbs 22:17-18 where Amen-em-opet speaks of giving ear to what is said and placing it in the heart. This gives light to the idea that other ANE cultures also had wisdom teachings and sayings. Much ink could be and has been spilled on this subject and is not the goal of this paper. Wisdom is the subject at hand in light of Old Testament theology.
Wisdom in the Old Testament centers on experiential knowledge as mentioned by Von Rad. This element does present problems that Von Rad points out.
This experiential knowledge is, however not only a very complex entity, but also a very vulnerable one. And this cannot be otherwise, for it renders man an invaluable service in enabling him to function in his sphere of life other than as a complete stranger and puts him in the position of understanding that sphere of life, at least to a certain extent, as an ordered system. Such knowledge does not accrue to an individual, nor even to a generation.[6]
Wisdom is therefore a general collection of teachings of an entire nation and culture. Ancient Israel also participated in this collection of experiential data. The problem Von Rad speaks of is that wisdom is not inclusive to an individual but to a nation. The vulnerability comes from the testing of the wisdom itself through everyday trials. These trials of wisdom are found in the Old Testament in the form of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes which we will now discuss.
The role of wisdom in Job
In the book of Job, there was a prevailing understanding of one’s relationship to God being righteous or unrighteous derived by the end results of a person’s decision. If one was righteous then blessings would be a result of a person’s right standing with God. Wickedness conversely resulted in trials and sufferings. This is where Job is in juxtaposition to the theology of the day.
Wisdom theology in the book of Job said that if one adheres to the godly way of life, then one would be counted righteous. Such was not the case for Job. Job’s predicament was that he was a righteous man before God, yet he received suffering. This was contradictory to the teaching of wisdom because due to his righteousness he didn’t deserve suffering.
In this setting, “Job’s moral virtue and piety provide the basis for the dramatic movement in the story.”[7] It is here where the story begins. Job is unaware of the dialogue that takes place between hasatan and God. This hasatan referred to in Psalms.109:6, makes his way over the earth uncovering evil that he then takes to the divine judge. Here he takes the motivations of Job into question. “His accusation is that Job’s moral virtue and piety are inspired by self-interest: by currying divine favor Job experiences prosperity and is protected against misfortune.”[8] Wisdom is in essence placed on trial. When God saw that man was looking to wisdom as a means for the divine favor, this gave him an opportunity in his own wisdom to change the theology of man.
Job soon looses his family, wealth and ultimately his health. This places Job in opposition to his wisdom theology as mentioned earlier. He soon goes through the experiences of the bewilderment of the problem that takes place after the prologue in the book.
In the narrative section of the text, Job is greeted by his friends in an attempt to console his suffering. The friends conjecture that his piety is not where it should be. Job agrees with them that wickedness results in suffering. Job agues with the friends because he has done nothing wrong in the sight of God. All of the friends lecture Job to change his ways and return to righteous living. They missed the point God was trying to convey.
As the poetic Job encounters this intellectual crisis of faith, his major contention with both his narrative counterpart and the friends in the dialogues is over the explanation given to the breakdown in epistemological understanding and faithful expectations of the righteous.[9]
After a long and painful journey, Job maintains his faith and trust in God. He now demanded an answer to his question, “Why do the righteous suffer?” God finally decides to answer (Job 38).
Here is a humbling challenge that God gave to Job. After he had heaped up many hard questions upon him, he showed Job by his manifest ignorance in the works of nature, what an incompetent judge he was of the methods and designs of Providence.[10]
Wisdom and Creation in Job
God brings Job back to the beginning and allows creation to speak to him (Job 11: 7-9; 36:22-30, 37:2-16). Here God asks Job about the creative acts that took place without Job’s permission. God asks where he was when all of creation took place. These questions demonstrated to Job “that God could not be put in the wrong by man, nor could he be summoned before any court.” “Similarly, it was they who used as an argument against Job the incomprehensibility of the divine activity in creation.”[11] God makes his point that Job has no basis for questioning him and his sovereignty.
Summary of Wisdom in Job
In short, God used the wisdom teaching in the book to prove his point to humanity. Job was chosen by God to make it clear to humankind that the system failed. He is sovereign. Man’s right standing with him is not based on a system of trusting in wisdom to yield righteousness. For Job, it was. Faith and trust in God brought him into righteousness. Today placing faith and trust in God’s son Jesus Christ brings humanity to right relationship with the creator, Yahweh.
Role of Wisdom in Proverbs
Wisdom in Proverbs takes on a lively role. In the book, wisdom is given a personification as a woman. Here she is contrasted against the folly of the wicked along with an adulteress. More on this personification will be discussed later.
The point of the book is to bring people to an understanding of wisdom and implement it in their daily lives. “The wise man and the fool appear on almost every page of this book and we learn right away that the aim of these sages was to subtract from the number of fools and add to the number of the wise.”[12]
Wisdom’s concern was to also help man see that God was concerned with man’s whole life and that it also involved a total commitment. [13] The word discipline comes to mind when reading the text. The book tries to relate practical wisdom to humanity all the while incorporating self-discipline versus self-indulgence. Moderation is a theme that runs throughout the book relating to a lifestyle.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the book is to implement wisdom into daily life. To do so the sages used these proverbial sayings with a didactic method to incorporate wisdom into life.
Wisdom also takes on various literary forms. Several chiasms run throughout the book. The saying is the most general form used in Proverbs. Others include didactic proverbs, admonitions and prohibitions, numerical sayings, rhetorical questions, wisdom poems, controversy speech and disputation, confession and reflection.[14]
These various forms make the book a collection of sayings that all relate to the same theme, which is the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”[15] It is this theme that is the cohesive bond that holds true throughout its sayings.
The understanding that the fear of the Lord brings wisdom is the basis for all knowledge and wisdom. This fear that is spoken of relates to a reverential fear and not terror. Submission in worship is the desired attitude if one is to attain wisdom and knowledge. This acknowledges that all wisdom comes from God. Jacob points out that through the teaching of the fear of God, the young were taught to respect authority.[16] In doing so the teachers were instilling wisdom into the youth of their day. Jacob also mentioned that;
The wise, as dispensers of knowledge under its cognitive aspect, but especially under its practical aspect, are one of the channels through which God’s presence is communicated to men.[17]
Personification of Wisdom in Proverbs
The book of Proverbs gives wisdom a feminine form (Prov. 8:1-36). As mentioned earlier, this woman is contrasted to the wicked and the adulteress.
This is not to indicate that God is a woman, as some liberal theologians like to assert. On the contrary, this is a metaphorical use of the term to paint a picture, a picture of a woman to be sought after. Just as a young man pursues after the love of his life in hopes of marriage, he too must search to find wisdom. Fontaine mentions that these two pictures of the woman of wisdom and her evil twin, wisdom versus folly, are metaphorical poems used by the sages to make the point of wisdom teachings.[18]
Wisdom and Creation in Proverbs
Creation comes again as a theme that helps unite the wisdom literature books (Prov. 8:22-31). Here, wisdom is given another personification as creation. In this role, wisdom is placed before all that was from the beginning. “The Lord formed me in the beginning, before he created anything else. From ages past, I am. I existed be fore the earth began.”[19] Some scholars have indicated that this refers to the New Testament messiah, Jesus, where he is alluded to as being the firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15,17). This would make sense coming from a New Testament point of view.
Summary of Wisdom in Proverbs
The book of Proverbs is truly a masterpiece in the eyes of this author; the reason being that the end of the book is a description of the perfect wife. This picture is obviously representing a good find for a young man. Metaphorically speaking, the woman found is the end result of the pursuit of wisdom herself. After a lifelong search, longing for wisdom through the fear of the Lord, one finds her in the end. She is the prize lady wisdom.
Role of Wisdom in Ecclesiastes
The book of Ecclesiastes is another book considered to be part of the wisdom teachings. This book does have a tendency to be gloomy in nature but for a good reason. Wisdom here is challenged like in the book of Job.
The theological conversation of Proverbs and Job concerning the relationship of human behavior and divine purpose continues in the book of Ecclesiastes. Like Job, it presents a challenge to traditional theology. The book of Ecclesiastes questions the purpose of human existence. It asks, what gives lasting meaning to life? If everyone only dies in the end, what is the meaningful difference between righteousness and wickedness?[20]
In Ecclesiastes, the common thread that is throughout the book is the phrase “everything is meaningless.” Qoheleth, the author also known as the teacher, throughout his lifetime had taken various paths and found that they all led to the same end, Sheol. The end where he drew conclusions Qholeth found that all was futile. This word, meaningless, can be translated in various ways. Meaningless(ness), vanity, futility, emptiness, absurdity are a few ways the author uses the Hebrew word hebel. “The word is related to wind and mist, and in Ecclesiastes it is used for things that do not last, cannot be grasped, or are not worthwhile. There is no English word with the same range of meaning.”[21]
It seems that the author chose to take the pessimistic side of wisdom versus the more traditional positive way it was typically used. This pessimism can be also found in ancient Egypt writings in much the same way.
The purpose has been generally assumed to show the futility of the world over and against eternity meaning it is evangelistic in nature.[22] The teacher is trying to convey life is without meaning, therefore all one can do is enjoy to the fullest and trust God. It is necessary to mention that even though the author was discontented with the outcome of all of his work, toils and laborings, he still trusted God. God was never rejected nor blamed for the despair of humanity.
During the discourse of the book, the author takes the reader on a journey. This journey is an overview of his life and his life’s work while looking for life’s purpose. The teacher’s responses to these experiences come to an end with a negative response. This negative response is what leads the teacher to a similar predicament to that of Job. In the author’s eyes, the system of traditional wisdom leading to prosperity has failed. Wisdom again is placed in a juxtaposition, where the author, like Job, tries to find meaning.
Like job, the reader can find an overall movement from despair where “the dead are to be praised more than the living, and the unborn above either.”[23] The teacher faced the same conclusion that Job came to that the theological system had failed. It would seem that wisdom had failed in its attempt to keep man happy and prosperous. Such is not the case because wisdom is used in an interesting way as will be discussed later.
Summary of Wisdom in Ecclesiastes
Everything is meaningless (Eccl. 12:8). The teacher expresses his findings after reflecting on old age, death and the call to joy.[24] For wisdom it is a different outcome, as mentioned earlier. Here in the book of Ecclesiastes, the author wittingly used the negative tones to emphasize the true meaning of wisdom.
The book was written to those who were wise and educated. Using despair, the teacher drives home the point that life without God is futile. In the epilogue Qoheleth gives instruction to fear God and obey his commands (Eccl. 12:13). It is this same theme that holds the wisdom books together as a collection. In summation, the fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom.
Conclusion
Wisdom’s role in Old Testament theology takes on several different themes and roles. In the book of Proverbs it is a woman to search and long after resulting in blessings. In the book of Job wisdom is fleeting, leaving Job homeless and broken. Ecclesiastes sees wisdom as futile but in the end uses it to prove the point that without God, life is empty. The theme of creation in the wisdom books draws the readers back to the basic understanding that God is the beginning of all things where wisdom resides. Creation is used to remind humanity that God is man’s beginning. Wisdom in the Old Testament was used to instruct one how to become close to God at the same time calling for a new worldview.
In conclusion, wisdom’s ultimate goal is to direct humankind to trust in God not in a system; it is to have faith despite the circumstances, trials and sufferings life may put humans through. Fearing God is not the end but should be the beginning. This is the result of wisdom in the Old Testament.
Works Cited
Murphy, Roland and Elizabeth Huwiler. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.
Bandstra, Barry L. "Ecclesiastes." [Online]. “ Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible.” Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1999. Cited 5 May, 2003. Available from
The Living Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.
Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.
Garrett, Duane E. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Edited by Ray E. Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1999.
Patterson, John. The Wisdom of Israel. Edited by F.F Bruce. New York, London: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary, Vol. III Job to Song of Solomon. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.
Perdue, Leo G. et al. In Search of Wisdom. Louisville, KY: Westminster, John Knox Press, 1993.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom & Creation the Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Von Rad, Gerhard. Wisdom In Isreal. Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom and Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1988.
Martens, Elmer, A. God's Design A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.
[1] Leo G Perdue., Wisdom & Creation the Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 20.
[2] Elmer Martens, A, God's Design A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, Apollos, 1994), 47.
[3] Martens, God's Design A Focus on Old Testament, 50.
[4] Ibid, 34.
[5] James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom and Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1988), 3.
[6] Gerhard Von Rad, Wisdom In Israel (Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974), 3.
[7] Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 83.
[8]Ibid, 82.
[9] Leo G Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 89.
[10] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary Vol. III Job to Song of Solomon (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co, ), 219.
[11] Gerhard Von Rad, Wisdom In Israel (Great Britain: Abingdon, 1974), 224 ff. here the author is referring to Job 34:10,12,17b; 11:7-9;36:22-30; 37:2-16.
[12] John Patterson, The Wisdom of Isreal, ed. F.F Bruce (London: Abingdon Press, 1962), 54.
[13]Ibid, 57.
[14] Garrett Duane E., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1999), 29ff.
[15] The Holy Bible, New King James Version (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), Proverbs 9:10.
[16] Jacob Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958), 252.
[17]Ibid, 253.
[18] Perdue, In Search of Wisdom, 110.
[19] The Living Bible (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971), Proverbs 8:22-23.
[20] Barry L. Bandstra, "Ecclesiastes," [online] Reading the Old Testament, An Intorduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Co.1999, cited 5 May, 2003, available from
[21] Elizabeth Huwiler, Murphy Roland, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 181.
[22] Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 271.
[23] Huwiler, New International Biblical Commentary, 191.
[24]Ibid, 215.
Stem Cells: The Process and Ethics
INTRODUCTION
"Save the Stem Cells,"[1] cries Chris Carter and his associates of the Save the Stem cell campaign, “Because of their ability to regenerate a patient's immune system when it has been damaged by disease or destroyed by therapies such as chemotherapy or radiation.”[2] Carter is one of a number of scientists that are deeply interested in this subject due to possible implications that stem cells have as being a suitable resource for experimentation to further the ease of suffering humanity.
Stem cells have had a rocky past within the Christian community due to the nature of where and how they are harvested for research. The use of stem cells has been a hotly debated issue between politicians, Christians and scientists because of the concern for the cells that come from human embryos and the temptation to use them for the purpose of cloning humans. Carter’s view, is just one of many views that will be looked at within this paper in an attempt to come to a final resting place ethically concerning the use of embryonic stem cells in particular.
To properly understand all of the ethical and political concerns involved with stem cells, one must understand what they are, where they come from and how they are used. To begin with, there are three different types of stem cells that are used, human embryonic, adult and germ. Veigas explains the growth process of stem cells and the stages of cells that takes place,
“A fertilized human egg is programmed to divide over an over again until, after one to five days, it forms a round ball of cells called a blastocyst. A blastocyst under a microscope basically looks like a soap bubble filled with liquid, with a bunch of egg-shaped smaller cells gathered into one corner of the bubble. These smaller cells are the embryonic stem cells. When the blastocyst containing the embryonic stem cells is approximately two days old, the stem cells are totipotent. This means that they have the potential of forming an entire human being. When the blastocyst is about four days old, the stem cells within it are said to be plurpotent. This means that they can now divide and turn into any type of cell with the body. At eight days old, the cells have become more specialized and are now called multipotent. At this stage they begin to form any of the numerous types of cells, such as nerve or muscle cells, that make up a person. Eventually, multipotent stem cells will begin to clump together to form actual organs. For example heart muscle cells with turn into a heart and cartilage cells will begin to form the first stages of a skeleton.”[3]
Here, Jennifer Viegas relates the most debated are the embryonic stem cells, ES for short. ES cells are those cells that have been taken from a fertilized egg before they have become differentiated. Differentiation comes after the egg separates itself into more than one cell within the first few days of fertilization. Differentiation is also when the cells begin the process of determining what they will become. Viegas goes on to explain that,
“Stem cells are unspecialized cells. They do not carry out specific functions, as do other cells. Most stem cells are like notebooks filled with empty pages. Just as a person can create a book by writing on blank pieces of paper, scientists hope to turn blank stem cells into whatever kind of cells they need.”[4] Thus the reason for the scientific community wanting to harvest the cells prior to the point of differentiation because it allows the scientist to program the cell to become what he or she desires it to be, hence the debate. Stem cells do not have to come from a fertilized egg, they can also come from other types of cells which come from other places such as cord blood from fully developed humans or adults. The types of cells which are obtained from fully developed humans are known as adult stem cells. The hope is that with stem cells, “Scientists hope that in the future, with the help of stem cells, humans will be able to repair worn-out parts of the body as easily as they now repair a damaged part of a car or computer.”[5] It is important to note that any type of stem cell can be used in this fashion and not only those which come from humans; animal stem cells can be also used for research. However, the implications for humans as stated earlier by Veigas, show potential for the selling of human body parts, thus the reason for debate. One can see that stem cell research is a sticky issue ethically and a good reason for concern which will be discussed later.
THE HISTORY OF STEM CELLS
The history of this science reaches back a few years into the early 60’s but the most recent advances in the field have resulted in great debate surrounding the use of hES or human embryonic stem cells especially as it relates to the cloning of a being. In February of 1997, the first clone of an animal was revealed to the scientific community. The animal that was cloned was named Dolly, a sheep. This was a breakthrough in reproductive technology but a shock to the rest of the world due to the ethical questions that were raised. Even though cloning is another hot genetic issue, it is not the purpose of this paper. Stem cell technology has been a process of geneticists looking for a way to ease human suffering, as stated before, as well as finding out what other possibilities may lay within the science and what it could be used for. For scientists the possibilities are endless without the intervention of ethics. Looking back into the 60’s, scientists found that if they used stem cells and injected them into certain parts of the body that had been damaged by disease, that the stem cells would replicate and replace the damaged cells and repair the organ or blood that was damaged. This type of technology today is called stem cell therapy. One good example of this occurred in the early 1960’s with a patient with a “severe combined immunodeficiency disorder in 1968”[6] This showed scientists the huge potential that stem cells had and began the in-depth research that continues in various parts of the world to this day.
Cell research continued throughout the 60’s as scientists worked on improving the in vitro fertilization of eggs. During the 1980’s this process was greatly improved as one of the first babies was conceived in 1981. As time progressed scientists began to realize that through animal research that mice could produce several kinds of cells. By the year 1981, embryonic stem cells were taken from mice and used to find if they could be used to reproduce any other type of cell. “Scientists put these cells through a number of tests to see if they could produce the three basic types of cells found in mammals. The scientists were able to clone the cells, producing copies and were able to turn them into other types of cells.”[7]
To date, some nations have allowed human embryonic stem cells to be used in research and others have not. The United States is one of those nations that put a hold on federal funding in the research of human embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has allowed the research to continue. Only time will tell of their findings.
In 1998, the idea of using stem cell research came to a head when a couple of scientists devised a plan to use stem cells in conjunction with cloning to come up with more therapeutic ways to use the cells. They found that the “combining of cloning and stem cell technologies might make it possible to generate replacement tissues with significant therapeutic value.”[8] This idea was revolutionary and made a division within the scientific community due to its ethical concerns related to the concept of replacement parts for humans.
In short, the history of stem cell research has exploded within the last ten years and will be a topic of debate for years to come due to bringing up more questions than answers as it relates to ethics.
THE PRACTICES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH
In practice, one might question how these cells are actually obtained. As alluded to earlier, many are harvested from in vitro, test tube, forms of fertilization. Others can be gained from terminated pregnancies, abortions, once the fetus or baby is removed. Once these cells are removed they can be cultivated to be stored for the future. These types of cells that come from a single embryo are known as cell lines. Another method of obtaining stem cells is to clone the embryo to produce the stem cells that could be harvested. In this practice another cloned embryo is a result and is used for scientific research. Using the same type of concept is yet another way to obtain stem cells by the use of a human egg. When a human egg is used and injected with another cell from another part of the body, it will begin to reproduce another embryo. Patrick Dickson puts it this way;
“If we take one of your skin cells and fuse it with an unfertilized human egg, the chemical bath inside a human egg activates all the silenced genes, and the combined cell becomes so totipotent that it starts to make a new human being. What then if we could find a way to reactivate just a few silenced genes, and perhaps at the same time silence some of the others? Could we find a chemical that would mimic what happens in the embryo, with the power to transform cells from one type into another? Yes we can. Jonathan Slack and others have done just that. What was considered impossible five years ago is already history. Could we take adult cells and force them back into a more general, undetermined embryonic state? Yes we can. It is now possible to create cells with a wide range of plasticity, all from adult tissue. The secret is to get the right gene activators into the nucleus, not so hard as we thought.”[9]
One can see that the potential for this type of science is huge. The impact that embryonic and adult stem cell research within the medical community relating to the human health of the world can revolutionize medicine as it is known today. Despite all of the great advances, however, there are still ethical questions that need to be answered which will be discussed later.
Another method of extracting adult stem cells comes from the marrow of life itself from adults. That is, it can be obtained by the bone marrow within an adult’s bones. These cells are found within the marrow which produces white blood cells along with red blood cells. There are many other places within the human body that contains these cells that researchers are clamoring to gain. “These places include the brain, skeletal muscles, liver, skin, digestive tract and pancreas, which is the organ that produces insulin.”[10] Stem cells from the pancreas can be of benefit especially to those who have diabetes. These cells can be used in the treatment of diabetes for a possible cure.
The problem with using adult stem cells is that they are harder to replicate. Adult stem cells, unlike embryonic stem cells, have to be matured into a copy. This adds a step in the process and takes more time to multiply the cell and is a more complicated process than the use of embryonic stem cells. One advantage to the adult stem cells, however, is that they are capable of producing more cells different from what that they were taken from. This can be of benefit when the scientist wants to make a new set of cells to form another part of the
body. The advantage of adult stem cells is that they are less controversial than that of the embryonic stem cells which come from human embryos. The disadvantage is that they are difficult to find within the human body and are difficult to copy, unlike the embryonic stem cells. Research continues within both of the methods discussed, the use of embryonic and adult stem cells.
ES cells are cultivated after being obtained in a solution that contains other nutrients called fibroblasts that keep the stem cells in a state prior to being differentiated so they can multiply indefinitely.[11] The problem for scientists has been that they have only been able to cultivate very few of these stem cells effectively.
One question that comes to mind throughout this process of harvesting embryonic stem cells is if the cells are considered to be alive or dead when they are obtained. Scientifically speaking in ninth grade biology class, students are taught that when a cell divides, it is called life. Therefore, it would be safe to logically conclude that stem cells are alive when they are harvested. However, in that same class students are also taught Darwin’s theory of evolution which contends that all organisms are in a process of evolving to a higher state. This would bring to the issue of harvesting stem cells the concept that one would be aiding in the evolutionary process and that the manipulation of these cells would not be changing the status of a cell’s life rather it would be aiding it to achieve
the next higher level in the chain. Obviously, this brings into the scenario the differences of opinions between those who are creationists and those who are evolutionists which brings up another contention for controversy. Are humans mere animals? If embryonic stem cells are seen in this light, then there would be no problems ethically, seeing that they are just cells and contain no human life and can be manipulated to the whims of the researcher. There is no question about the cell being alive. The issue then is if the cell is at a point to which it could be considered a baby, hence another cause for debate
Another type of stem cell is the germ cell. Germ cells are cells that are taken from sperm or eggs that are the essence of what makes up an embryo. They are usually obtained from a human fetus, or baby, prior to birth usually between the five to ten week old stage of the baby, or fetus.[12] Here again, questions can be raised about the life and death issue of the fetus or baby. Moral and ethical concerns will be spoken of later.
To summarize the three types of stem cells discussed; adult stem cells, germ cells and human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic stem cells are the least difficult to harvest and are the most desirable to perform research on. This is the reason why these cells have been and are the target for researchers. As a result of the ethical issues, politicians and theologians today due to their ethical, moral, political and scientific implications also target human embryonic stem cells. Of the three, hES cells have been the most controversial throughout the
United States and the world. The harvesting of these cells is a tedious process that takes time and patience on the part of researchers as well as problems for ethicists worldwide as well.
For practical reasons, it is virtually impossible to communicate in written form the various concepts and foundations of molecular biology surrounding the development of a human embryo within the confines of this paper. Human embryonic stem cells, however, can be understood as the basis of the beginnings of a human life. It is important for all to understand the complexity of issues that surround the science of stem cells.
REACTIONS TO STEM CELL RESEARCH
One of the issues that is difficult to grasp is the difference between hES cells and other cells within the human body. To be honest, one must be willing to ask the question about the difference between a cell that is self renewing such as a skin cell and an embryonic stem cell that is undifferentiated. Both cells are capable of becoming any type of cell before differentiation occurs. Many types of adult cells are discarded on a daily basis by moral, logical thinking people everyday. Blood and organ donations are just one example of the giving up of cells in order to ease the burden of others who are in need of them. Logically thinking, without the interruption of life at conception, any of these cells can be used for the purpose of stem cell research. The issue that drives this method of
thinking into a tailspin is the concept that life begins at conception. Humber says that,
“In the field of regenerative medicine, embryonic stem cell research holds far-reaching promise in alleviating and preventing an array of debilitating diseases and conditions. Yet the biggest ethical stumbling block continues to be conflicting beliefs about the moral status of the human embryo.”[13]
It is this dilemma of the moral status of the human embryo, that has been the basis for concern and rightly so. This debate has stalled the process for researchers, especially in the United States from, continuing in the research of human embryonic stem cells.
Moral concerns of a nation’s people propel governments into juxtaposition when it comes to dealing with new technologies. According to Barbour,
“Governments have three broad functions in relation to technology; they provide funds for research and development cooperate with industry to encourage the growth and diffusion of technology and regulate technology in the interests of health, safety and environmental protection.”[14]
Governments are then tasked with overseeing not only the financial needs of technology but also being sensitive to moral concerns as well. For government leaders it then becomes an issue of whose health is at risk. The question turns toward the fetus’s or babies rights when it comes to health and safety. For the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, (NBAC), the question becomes a question of moral respect in that does a human embryo have a right to moral respect? For Françoise Baylis, it is not an easy answer to come up with. He
contends that the NBAC cannot settle the dispute between the differing opinions of moral rights.[15] He goes on by saying that, “it is unlikely that, by sheer force of argument, those with particularly strong beliefs on either side will be persuaded to change their opinions.”[16] If the government cannot make up its own mind about how to proceed with the issue, it means that conflict is bound to occur within the legal and judicial system also. “Courts may be called on to resolve conflicts between the wishes of researchers, parents, and the subjects”[17] as it relates to human stem cell experimentation. The line between when a cell is considered alive becomes fuzzy because of the question of which stage should a cell be considered a live moral being?
For many like Michael West, stem cells are not yet alive until they have become implanted within the uterus despite being differentiated. West feels that it is ethical for researcher to use human embryonic stem cells for experimentation.
“The fertilization of the egg cell by a sperm leads to a single cell called the zygote. From this first cell, multiple rounds of cell division over the first week result in a microscopic ball of cells with very unusual properties. This early embryo, called the preimplantation embryo, has not implanted in the uterus to begin a pregnancy. At the blastocyst stage of the preimplantation embryo, no body cells ova any type have formed. Those who argue that the preimplantation embryo is a person are left with the logical absurdity of ascribing to the blasocyst personhood when we know scientifically speaking, that no individual exists (i.e. the blastocyst may still form identical twins).”[18]
In this view, a cell is a cell is a cell and it has no rights to life due to it’s not being attached to the uterus and not having any type of resemblance to a human being in form. Since forty percent, according to West, of all eggs fail to attach themselves to the uterus and pass out of a woman’s system, the cells are discarded naturally. This utilitarian thought, supplies the justification for using preimplantation eggs to be used for experimentation due to the chance of failure. In this case the means justify the ends.
In contrast, the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD), calls this type of science invalid.
“Some embryology textbooks now openly refer to the term pre-embryo as scientifically invalid and inaccurate term which has been discarded and others which one used the term has quietly dropped it from new editions. Both Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission have also rejected the term , describing the human embryo from its earliest stages as a living organism and a developing form of human life.”[19]
For the CBHD, it is a scientific myth that human life begins only after implantation to the wall of the uterus. They propose that other means of stem cell research should be investigated instead of human embryonic stem cells. They prefer the use of stem cells that come from cord blood or from the bone marrow of adult stem cells. It could be said that the CBHD is more deontological as opposed to the utilitarian view in their approach to this science as it relates to the human embryonic stem cells being alive and having value which the author of this paper would agree.
One could take the thoughts of the CBHD a step further and look to the evidence of the human genome. A human genome is one of the basic building blocks of human life also known as genes within the DNA makeup of human beings. There are “approximately thirty thousand genes found within human DNA.”[20] If a cell contains genetic DNA material of a human being, then that cell could be considered having human characteristics.
Stem cells having a human genome therefore should not be used according to Shannon. “Human embryonic stem cell research should not be conducted in full awareness that the research material is derived from a living human blastocyst and that in fact we are using this human tissue as a means to an end: improved health care and possible cures.”[21]
The concept of using the preimplantation stage of a human embryo has the potential for confusion if not properly understood. Just because an embryo has not yet attached itself to the wall of the uterus and been differentiated does not mean that it does not possess unique qualities within the human reproductive cycle. The cells which are in the preimplantation stage still have genetic material common to the human genome. They are common within the human system of genetics yet they are still unique because they will become fully developed human being provided that there is no outside intervention. “Such individuality is also philosophical in that this being is a single being with the potential to become a moral agent, and individual responsible for his or her own acts.”[22]
ETHICAL CONCERNS
Obviously, there are quite a number of opinions when it comes to the scientific research in the area of human embryonic stem cells. These variances in the understanding of what the status of the embryo is directly relates to the moral and ethical belief system of the one who is doing the research. These systems of beliefs vary from utilitarianism and relativism to that of virtue theory or deontological. The process by which one chooses to follow can be a big influence upon the act of the researcher. What it boils down to is a decision in moral choices one has in approaching science in relation to when and where life begins for human beings. Due to these variances in beliefs, there are many ethical and religious problems associated with this research as it will now be discussed.
“Pope John Paul II gave another perspective on this debate in an address to President Bush on July 23, 2001, during his papal visit. The pope rearticulated his position on the use of embryos by saying: “Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation feticide, and most recently, proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to be destroyed in the process”[23] Clearly the pontiff was in total disagreement with the decisions being made about human embryonic stem cell research which set the stage for the Catholic Church.
As alluded to earlier in this paper, problems arise when these hES cells are considered nothing more than cells that have no human value. When a cell is fertilized, according the Catholic church, from that point forward the cell is no longer just a cell but a human being. It would be logical to conclude then that life begins at conception. However, one must also consider the scientific understanding that cells that are not being used as a part of procreation are not seen as having value of human life such as skin cells. These cells then are more justifiably able to be discarded. hES cells are more than just skin cells, they are cells that have been given a chance at becoming a human being through the process of procreation.
The next problem that arises is what to do with the hES cells that have already been harvested and are stored for research purposes. If one sees the hES cells as having human value, then they should be treated humanely and with respect. This also gives rise to the issue of how to treat them humanely. Since they are human beings in view of imagio dei, then they cannot be destroyed nor can they be used for research purposes. These hES cells can also not be used for implantation purposes due to the Christian ethical stance that it could be considered adultery to do so.
Other ethical problems come when human embryonic stem cells are used to replicate themselves. Once this has been done there are more cells that have human value than could possibly be discarded. Whatever the stance one takes, he or she must educate themselves on the issues before making a decision.
For several church denominations, the issue of cloning and stem cell research as it relates to human embryonic stem cell research has been a hot topic. Several of these denominations have issued statements that are relevant to this bioscience.
The United Methodists in May of 1997 stated that,
“As United Methodists, our reflections on these issues emerge from our faith. When we think about cloning, we remember that creation has its origin, value and destiny in God, that humans are stewards of creation, and that technology has brought both great benefit and harm to creation. As people of faith, we believe that our identity as humans is more than our genetic inheritance, our social environment, or the sum of the two. We are created by God and have been redeemed by Jesus Christ. In light of these theological claims and other questions, fears and expectations, we recognize that our present human knowledge on this issue is incomplete and finite. It is important that the limits of human knowledge be considered as policy is made. As Christians, we affirm that all human beings, regardless of the method of reproduction, are children of God and bear the Image of God.”[24]
This statement shows clearly that they believe that life begins at conception just as the Catholic church does. The United Methodists see the human embryo as being one that already possesses the individuality of a human being as related to earlier.
Others like the United Church of Christ tend to disagree seeing that they feel that the embryo before 14 days old is not yet defined as being a human life although retaining value and should be respected. Past the point of implantation, they consider it a human life and should not be tampered with. In their statement in 1971 determined that,
“We on the United Church of Christ Committee on Genetics do not object categorically to human pre-embryo research, including research that produces and studies cloned human pre-embryos through the 14th day of fetal development, provided the research is well justified in terms of its objectives, the research protocols show proper respect for the pre-embryos, and that they not be implanted.”[25]
Since that time, the United Church of Christ has not made very much progress in terms of making a more distinctive decision to human embryonic stem cell research. Most of all they urge public discussion of the issue and that any decisions made by government pertaining to federal guidelines for research be brought before religious review boards to help make decisions.
It is highly important for the scientific community to have some set of guidelines so that order can be maintained with respect to humans. Clearly not everyone respects the Christian conservative stance on the stem cell research issue however, if there are no guidelines, anything can be a result. Where there is a lack standards, chaos can result. “Moral dilemmas produced by these procedures will only become more sophisticated and complicated. The uses of each specific technology must be carefully weighed, and cannot be exempt from moral scrutiny.”[26]
Ethically and morally speaking there is no doubt that human embryonic stem cells are a topic that will be hotly debated in the future by religious leaders, researchers and politicians alike. It could be said that human embryonic stem cells and cloning have the potential of becoming another dividing issue similar to the abortion issue that has been problematic over the last ten years. Time will tell.
Much could be said for the reactions that religious leaders and governments have had about stem cells due to the abundance of ink that has been spilled on the subject.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study of stem cell research is a very interesting and fascinating study. The moral and ethical problems that are related to the subject are of great concern.
For humanity, it could be said that the technology to genetically modify organisms has grown exponentially in the last five years and will do the same in the future as well. Given the data that has been written within these few pages it is quite clear that Christians are in the forefront of this argument for human life beginning at conception. For many, such as the United Methodists the embryo represents the future of an individual created by God which is unique possessing qualities that are the mirror image of God. It is imperative then that any embryo should be treated as a human being regardless of the means by which it was conceived.
Yes, there are circumstances that already exist where the human embryo has already been harvested for the purpose of genetic research and are in need of resolution. This is the problem with human embryonic stem cell research. What should the researchers do with the left over cells? Should they be discarded? Should they be frozen for years? There is no way of humanely deal with them once they are created. Despite the cumbersome process that it takes to obtain adult human stem cells, they should be used for the purpose of genetic research with obvious guidelines. These guidelines must include the understanding that they must not be used for the purpose of creating a human undifferentiated, preimplantation type of embryonic stem cell for the purpose of mutation.
It is clear that this science is here to stay and Christians must be aware of the science that is taking place and be ready to give educated scientific alternatives. The harvesting of human embryonic stem cells in this author’s opinion is a Pandora’s Box waiting with a myriad of problems as a result of careless ethical positions. One must be educated on the issues that surround stem cells and not shy away from the science that has such great possibilities.
Stem cell science is definitely in its beginning stages. This research definitely has the potential of relieving the aches and pains of a hurting humanity and should be considered a viable resource for the future. Christians have the responsibility to educate themselves about the issue of human embryonic stem cell research and be able to stand in the gap for those who cannot stand for themselves yet.
Works Cited
Carter Chris, Save the Stem Cells, 12 November, 2001[online] accessed: 30 April 2005. available at
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Nov2001/SavetheStemCellsCampaign.html
Deem Rich, Stem Cell Research/Cloning: Status and Ethics. 4 October 04 [Online] accessed 30 April 2005. available at http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem008.html
Barbour Ian, Ethics in an age of Technology. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.
Cole-Turner Ronald etal., Human Cloning Religious Responses. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.
Dickson Patrick, The Future of Stem Cell Research: Rapid Progress. [online] accessed 30 April 2005. available at http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm
Espejo Roman etal., Human Embryo Experimentation. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Humber James etal., Biomedical Ethics Reviews: Stem Cell Research. Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press, 2004.
Maienschein Jane, Whose View of Life?. Cambridge, MA: London England, 2003.
Naff Clay etal., Gene Therapy. Farmington Hills, MI: 2005.
Rae Scott, Moral Choices. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2000.
Siedler Maurya etal., The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Farmington Hills, MI: 2005.
Shannon Thomas etal., The New Genetic Medicine, Theological and Ethical Reflections. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Ward Christopher, How are Stem Cells Harvested and Grown?. University of Birmingham 21 Feb 2003, [online] accessed 1 May 1, 2005. available at http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Feb2003/1045866973.Cb.r.html
Viegas Jennifer, Stem Cell Research. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003.
[1]Chris Carter, Save the Stem Cells, 12 November, 2001[online] accessed: 30 April 2005 available at http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Nov2001/SavetheStemCellsCampaign.html
[2]Ibid.
[3]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, (New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003), 21f.
[4]Ibid, 19.
[5]Ibid, 18f.
[6]Rich Deem, Stem Cell Research/Cloning: Status and Ethics, 4 October 04 [Online] accessed 30 April 2005 available at http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem008.html
[7]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 42ff.
[8]Jane Maienschein, Whose View of Life?, (Cambridge, MA: London England, 2003), 250.
[9]Patrick Dickson, The Future of Stem Cell Research: Rapid Progress, [online] accessed 30 April 2005 available at http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm
[10]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 34f.
[11]Christopher Ward, How are Stem Cells Harvested and Grown?, University of Birmingham 21 Feb 2003, [online] accessed 1 May 1, 2005 available at http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Feb2003/1045866973.Cb.r.html
[12]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 27.
[13]James Humber etal., Biomedical Ethics Reviews: Stem Cell Research, (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2004), 41.
[14]Ian Barbour, Ethics in an age of Technology, (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991), 213.
[15]Suzanne Holland etal., The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 52.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Clay Naff etal., Gene Therapy, (Farmington Hills, MI: 2005), 179.
[18]Maurya Siedler etal., The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, (Farmington Hills, MI: 2005), 70f.
[19]Roman Espejo etal., Human Embryo Experimentation, (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2002), 49.
[20]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research,11.
[21]Thomas Shannon etal., The New Genetic Medicine, Theological and Ethical Reflections, (Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 147.
[22]Ibid, 128.
[23]Ibid, 143.
[24]Ronald Cole-Turner etal., Human Cloning Religious Responses, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 143f.
[25]Ibid, 150.
[26]Scott Rae, Moral Choices, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 179.
"Save the Stem Cells,"[1] cries Chris Carter and his associates of the Save the Stem cell campaign, “Because of their ability to regenerate a patient's immune system when it has been damaged by disease or destroyed by therapies such as chemotherapy or radiation.”[2] Carter is one of a number of scientists that are deeply interested in this subject due to possible implications that stem cells have as being a suitable resource for experimentation to further the ease of suffering humanity.
Stem cells have had a rocky past within the Christian community due to the nature of where and how they are harvested for research. The use of stem cells has been a hotly debated issue between politicians, Christians and scientists because of the concern for the cells that come from human embryos and the temptation to use them for the purpose of cloning humans. Carter’s view, is just one of many views that will be looked at within this paper in an attempt to come to a final resting place ethically concerning the use of embryonic stem cells in particular.
To properly understand all of the ethical and political concerns involved with stem cells, one must understand what they are, where they come from and how they are used. To begin with, there are three different types of stem cells that are used, human embryonic, adult and germ. Veigas explains the growth process of stem cells and the stages of cells that takes place,
“A fertilized human egg is programmed to divide over an over again until, after one to five days, it forms a round ball of cells called a blastocyst. A blastocyst under a microscope basically looks like a soap bubble filled with liquid, with a bunch of egg-shaped smaller cells gathered into one corner of the bubble. These smaller cells are the embryonic stem cells. When the blastocyst containing the embryonic stem cells is approximately two days old, the stem cells are totipotent. This means that they have the potential of forming an entire human being. When the blastocyst is about four days old, the stem cells within it are said to be plurpotent. This means that they can now divide and turn into any type of cell with the body. At eight days old, the cells have become more specialized and are now called multipotent. At this stage they begin to form any of the numerous types of cells, such as nerve or muscle cells, that make up a person. Eventually, multipotent stem cells will begin to clump together to form actual organs. For example heart muscle cells with turn into a heart and cartilage cells will begin to form the first stages of a skeleton.”[3]
Here, Jennifer Viegas relates the most debated are the embryonic stem cells, ES for short. ES cells are those cells that have been taken from a fertilized egg before they have become differentiated. Differentiation comes after the egg separates itself into more than one cell within the first few days of fertilization. Differentiation is also when the cells begin the process of determining what they will become. Viegas goes on to explain that,
“Stem cells are unspecialized cells. They do not carry out specific functions, as do other cells. Most stem cells are like notebooks filled with empty pages. Just as a person can create a book by writing on blank pieces of paper, scientists hope to turn blank stem cells into whatever kind of cells they need.”[4] Thus the reason for the scientific community wanting to harvest the cells prior to the point of differentiation because it allows the scientist to program the cell to become what he or she desires it to be, hence the debate. Stem cells do not have to come from a fertilized egg, they can also come from other types of cells which come from other places such as cord blood from fully developed humans or adults. The types of cells which are obtained from fully developed humans are known as adult stem cells. The hope is that with stem cells, “Scientists hope that in the future, with the help of stem cells, humans will be able to repair worn-out parts of the body as easily as they now repair a damaged part of a car or computer.”[5] It is important to note that any type of stem cell can be used in this fashion and not only those which come from humans; animal stem cells can be also used for research. However, the implications for humans as stated earlier by Veigas, show potential for the selling of human body parts, thus the reason for debate. One can see that stem cell research is a sticky issue ethically and a good reason for concern which will be discussed later.
THE HISTORY OF STEM CELLS
The history of this science reaches back a few years into the early 60’s but the most recent advances in the field have resulted in great debate surrounding the use of hES or human embryonic stem cells especially as it relates to the cloning of a being. In February of 1997, the first clone of an animal was revealed to the scientific community. The animal that was cloned was named Dolly, a sheep. This was a breakthrough in reproductive technology but a shock to the rest of the world due to the ethical questions that were raised. Even though cloning is another hot genetic issue, it is not the purpose of this paper. Stem cell technology has been a process of geneticists looking for a way to ease human suffering, as stated before, as well as finding out what other possibilities may lay within the science and what it could be used for. For scientists the possibilities are endless without the intervention of ethics. Looking back into the 60’s, scientists found that if they used stem cells and injected them into certain parts of the body that had been damaged by disease, that the stem cells would replicate and replace the damaged cells and repair the organ or blood that was damaged. This type of technology today is called stem cell therapy. One good example of this occurred in the early 1960’s with a patient with a “severe combined immunodeficiency disorder in 1968”[6] This showed scientists the huge potential that stem cells had and began the in-depth research that continues in various parts of the world to this day.
Cell research continued throughout the 60’s as scientists worked on improving the in vitro fertilization of eggs. During the 1980’s this process was greatly improved as one of the first babies was conceived in 1981. As time progressed scientists began to realize that through animal research that mice could produce several kinds of cells. By the year 1981, embryonic stem cells were taken from mice and used to find if they could be used to reproduce any other type of cell. “Scientists put these cells through a number of tests to see if they could produce the three basic types of cells found in mammals. The scientists were able to clone the cells, producing copies and were able to turn them into other types of cells.”[7]
To date, some nations have allowed human embryonic stem cells to be used in research and others have not. The United States is one of those nations that put a hold on federal funding in the research of human embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has allowed the research to continue. Only time will tell of their findings.
In 1998, the idea of using stem cell research came to a head when a couple of scientists devised a plan to use stem cells in conjunction with cloning to come up with more therapeutic ways to use the cells. They found that the “combining of cloning and stem cell technologies might make it possible to generate replacement tissues with significant therapeutic value.”[8] This idea was revolutionary and made a division within the scientific community due to its ethical concerns related to the concept of replacement parts for humans.
In short, the history of stem cell research has exploded within the last ten years and will be a topic of debate for years to come due to bringing up more questions than answers as it relates to ethics.
THE PRACTICES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH
In practice, one might question how these cells are actually obtained. As alluded to earlier, many are harvested from in vitro, test tube, forms of fertilization. Others can be gained from terminated pregnancies, abortions, once the fetus or baby is removed. Once these cells are removed they can be cultivated to be stored for the future. These types of cells that come from a single embryo are known as cell lines. Another method of obtaining stem cells is to clone the embryo to produce the stem cells that could be harvested. In this practice another cloned embryo is a result and is used for scientific research. Using the same type of concept is yet another way to obtain stem cells by the use of a human egg. When a human egg is used and injected with another cell from another part of the body, it will begin to reproduce another embryo. Patrick Dickson puts it this way;
“If we take one of your skin cells and fuse it with an unfertilized human egg, the chemical bath inside a human egg activates all the silenced genes, and the combined cell becomes so totipotent that it starts to make a new human being. What then if we could find a way to reactivate just a few silenced genes, and perhaps at the same time silence some of the others? Could we find a chemical that would mimic what happens in the embryo, with the power to transform cells from one type into another? Yes we can. Jonathan Slack and others have done just that. What was considered impossible five years ago is already history. Could we take adult cells and force them back into a more general, undetermined embryonic state? Yes we can. It is now possible to create cells with a wide range of plasticity, all from adult tissue. The secret is to get the right gene activators into the nucleus, not so hard as we thought.”[9]
One can see that the potential for this type of science is huge. The impact that embryonic and adult stem cell research within the medical community relating to the human health of the world can revolutionize medicine as it is known today. Despite all of the great advances, however, there are still ethical questions that need to be answered which will be discussed later.
Another method of extracting adult stem cells comes from the marrow of life itself from adults. That is, it can be obtained by the bone marrow within an adult’s bones. These cells are found within the marrow which produces white blood cells along with red blood cells. There are many other places within the human body that contains these cells that researchers are clamoring to gain. “These places include the brain, skeletal muscles, liver, skin, digestive tract and pancreas, which is the organ that produces insulin.”[10] Stem cells from the pancreas can be of benefit especially to those who have diabetes. These cells can be used in the treatment of diabetes for a possible cure.
The problem with using adult stem cells is that they are harder to replicate. Adult stem cells, unlike embryonic stem cells, have to be matured into a copy. This adds a step in the process and takes more time to multiply the cell and is a more complicated process than the use of embryonic stem cells. One advantage to the adult stem cells, however, is that they are capable of producing more cells different from what that they were taken from. This can be of benefit when the scientist wants to make a new set of cells to form another part of the
body. The advantage of adult stem cells is that they are less controversial than that of the embryonic stem cells which come from human embryos. The disadvantage is that they are difficult to find within the human body and are difficult to copy, unlike the embryonic stem cells. Research continues within both of the methods discussed, the use of embryonic and adult stem cells.
ES cells are cultivated after being obtained in a solution that contains other nutrients called fibroblasts that keep the stem cells in a state prior to being differentiated so they can multiply indefinitely.[11] The problem for scientists has been that they have only been able to cultivate very few of these stem cells effectively.
One question that comes to mind throughout this process of harvesting embryonic stem cells is if the cells are considered to be alive or dead when they are obtained. Scientifically speaking in ninth grade biology class, students are taught that when a cell divides, it is called life. Therefore, it would be safe to logically conclude that stem cells are alive when they are harvested. However, in that same class students are also taught Darwin’s theory of evolution which contends that all organisms are in a process of evolving to a higher state. This would bring to the issue of harvesting stem cells the concept that one would be aiding in the evolutionary process and that the manipulation of these cells would not be changing the status of a cell’s life rather it would be aiding it to achieve
the next higher level in the chain. Obviously, this brings into the scenario the differences of opinions between those who are creationists and those who are evolutionists which brings up another contention for controversy. Are humans mere animals? If embryonic stem cells are seen in this light, then there would be no problems ethically, seeing that they are just cells and contain no human life and can be manipulated to the whims of the researcher. There is no question about the cell being alive. The issue then is if the cell is at a point to which it could be considered a baby, hence another cause for debate
Another type of stem cell is the germ cell. Germ cells are cells that are taken from sperm or eggs that are the essence of what makes up an embryo. They are usually obtained from a human fetus, or baby, prior to birth usually between the five to ten week old stage of the baby, or fetus.[12] Here again, questions can be raised about the life and death issue of the fetus or baby. Moral and ethical concerns will be spoken of later.
To summarize the three types of stem cells discussed; adult stem cells, germ cells and human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic stem cells are the least difficult to harvest and are the most desirable to perform research on. This is the reason why these cells have been and are the target for researchers. As a result of the ethical issues, politicians and theologians today due to their ethical, moral, political and scientific implications also target human embryonic stem cells. Of the three, hES cells have been the most controversial throughout the
United States and the world. The harvesting of these cells is a tedious process that takes time and patience on the part of researchers as well as problems for ethicists worldwide as well.
For practical reasons, it is virtually impossible to communicate in written form the various concepts and foundations of molecular biology surrounding the development of a human embryo within the confines of this paper. Human embryonic stem cells, however, can be understood as the basis of the beginnings of a human life. It is important for all to understand the complexity of issues that surround the science of stem cells.
REACTIONS TO STEM CELL RESEARCH
One of the issues that is difficult to grasp is the difference between hES cells and other cells within the human body. To be honest, one must be willing to ask the question about the difference between a cell that is self renewing such as a skin cell and an embryonic stem cell that is undifferentiated. Both cells are capable of becoming any type of cell before differentiation occurs. Many types of adult cells are discarded on a daily basis by moral, logical thinking people everyday. Blood and organ donations are just one example of the giving up of cells in order to ease the burden of others who are in need of them. Logically thinking, without the interruption of life at conception, any of these cells can be used for the purpose of stem cell research. The issue that drives this method of
thinking into a tailspin is the concept that life begins at conception. Humber says that,
“In the field of regenerative medicine, embryonic stem cell research holds far-reaching promise in alleviating and preventing an array of debilitating diseases and conditions. Yet the biggest ethical stumbling block continues to be conflicting beliefs about the moral status of the human embryo.”[13]
It is this dilemma of the moral status of the human embryo, that has been the basis for concern and rightly so. This debate has stalled the process for researchers, especially in the United States from, continuing in the research of human embryonic stem cells.
Moral concerns of a nation’s people propel governments into juxtaposition when it comes to dealing with new technologies. According to Barbour,
“Governments have three broad functions in relation to technology; they provide funds for research and development cooperate with industry to encourage the growth and diffusion of technology and regulate technology in the interests of health, safety and environmental protection.”[14]
Governments are then tasked with overseeing not only the financial needs of technology but also being sensitive to moral concerns as well. For government leaders it then becomes an issue of whose health is at risk. The question turns toward the fetus’s or babies rights when it comes to health and safety. For the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, (NBAC), the question becomes a question of moral respect in that does a human embryo have a right to moral respect? For Françoise Baylis, it is not an easy answer to come up with. He
contends that the NBAC cannot settle the dispute between the differing opinions of moral rights.[15] He goes on by saying that, “it is unlikely that, by sheer force of argument, those with particularly strong beliefs on either side will be persuaded to change their opinions.”[16] If the government cannot make up its own mind about how to proceed with the issue, it means that conflict is bound to occur within the legal and judicial system also. “Courts may be called on to resolve conflicts between the wishes of researchers, parents, and the subjects”[17] as it relates to human stem cell experimentation. The line between when a cell is considered alive becomes fuzzy because of the question of which stage should a cell be considered a live moral being?
For many like Michael West, stem cells are not yet alive until they have become implanted within the uterus despite being differentiated. West feels that it is ethical for researcher to use human embryonic stem cells for experimentation.
“The fertilization of the egg cell by a sperm leads to a single cell called the zygote. From this first cell, multiple rounds of cell division over the first week result in a microscopic ball of cells with very unusual properties. This early embryo, called the preimplantation embryo, has not implanted in the uterus to begin a pregnancy. At the blastocyst stage of the preimplantation embryo, no body cells ova any type have formed. Those who argue that the preimplantation embryo is a person are left with the logical absurdity of ascribing to the blasocyst personhood when we know scientifically speaking, that no individual exists (i.e. the blastocyst may still form identical twins).”[18]
In this view, a cell is a cell is a cell and it has no rights to life due to it’s not being attached to the uterus and not having any type of resemblance to a human being in form. Since forty percent, according to West, of all eggs fail to attach themselves to the uterus and pass out of a woman’s system, the cells are discarded naturally. This utilitarian thought, supplies the justification for using preimplantation eggs to be used for experimentation due to the chance of failure. In this case the means justify the ends.
In contrast, the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD), calls this type of science invalid.
“Some embryology textbooks now openly refer to the term pre-embryo as scientifically invalid and inaccurate term which has been discarded and others which one used the term has quietly dropped it from new editions. Both Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission have also rejected the term , describing the human embryo from its earliest stages as a living organism and a developing form of human life.”[19]
For the CBHD, it is a scientific myth that human life begins only after implantation to the wall of the uterus. They propose that other means of stem cell research should be investigated instead of human embryonic stem cells. They prefer the use of stem cells that come from cord blood or from the bone marrow of adult stem cells. It could be said that the CBHD is more deontological as opposed to the utilitarian view in their approach to this science as it relates to the human embryonic stem cells being alive and having value which the author of this paper would agree.
One could take the thoughts of the CBHD a step further and look to the evidence of the human genome. A human genome is one of the basic building blocks of human life also known as genes within the DNA makeup of human beings. There are “approximately thirty thousand genes found within human DNA.”[20] If a cell contains genetic DNA material of a human being, then that cell could be considered having human characteristics.
Stem cells having a human genome therefore should not be used according to Shannon. “Human embryonic stem cell research should not be conducted in full awareness that the research material is derived from a living human blastocyst and that in fact we are using this human tissue as a means to an end: improved health care and possible cures.”[21]
The concept of using the preimplantation stage of a human embryo has the potential for confusion if not properly understood. Just because an embryo has not yet attached itself to the wall of the uterus and been differentiated does not mean that it does not possess unique qualities within the human reproductive cycle. The cells which are in the preimplantation stage still have genetic material common to the human genome. They are common within the human system of genetics yet they are still unique because they will become fully developed human being provided that there is no outside intervention. “Such individuality is also philosophical in that this being is a single being with the potential to become a moral agent, and individual responsible for his or her own acts.”[22]
ETHICAL CONCERNS
Obviously, there are quite a number of opinions when it comes to the scientific research in the area of human embryonic stem cells. These variances in the understanding of what the status of the embryo is directly relates to the moral and ethical belief system of the one who is doing the research. These systems of beliefs vary from utilitarianism and relativism to that of virtue theory or deontological. The process by which one chooses to follow can be a big influence upon the act of the researcher. What it boils down to is a decision in moral choices one has in approaching science in relation to when and where life begins for human beings. Due to these variances in beliefs, there are many ethical and religious problems associated with this research as it will now be discussed.
“Pope John Paul II gave another perspective on this debate in an address to President Bush on July 23, 2001, during his papal visit. The pope rearticulated his position on the use of embryos by saying: “Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation feticide, and most recently, proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to be destroyed in the process”[23] Clearly the pontiff was in total disagreement with the decisions being made about human embryonic stem cell research which set the stage for the Catholic Church.
As alluded to earlier in this paper, problems arise when these hES cells are considered nothing more than cells that have no human value. When a cell is fertilized, according the Catholic church, from that point forward the cell is no longer just a cell but a human being. It would be logical to conclude then that life begins at conception. However, one must also consider the scientific understanding that cells that are not being used as a part of procreation are not seen as having value of human life such as skin cells. These cells then are more justifiably able to be discarded. hES cells are more than just skin cells, they are cells that have been given a chance at becoming a human being through the process of procreation.
The next problem that arises is what to do with the hES cells that have already been harvested and are stored for research purposes. If one sees the hES cells as having human value, then they should be treated humanely and with respect. This also gives rise to the issue of how to treat them humanely. Since they are human beings in view of imagio dei, then they cannot be destroyed nor can they be used for research purposes. These hES cells can also not be used for implantation purposes due to the Christian ethical stance that it could be considered adultery to do so.
Other ethical problems come when human embryonic stem cells are used to replicate themselves. Once this has been done there are more cells that have human value than could possibly be discarded. Whatever the stance one takes, he or she must educate themselves on the issues before making a decision.
For several church denominations, the issue of cloning and stem cell research as it relates to human embryonic stem cell research has been a hot topic. Several of these denominations have issued statements that are relevant to this bioscience.
The United Methodists in May of 1997 stated that,
“As United Methodists, our reflections on these issues emerge from our faith. When we think about cloning, we remember that creation has its origin, value and destiny in God, that humans are stewards of creation, and that technology has brought both great benefit and harm to creation. As people of faith, we believe that our identity as humans is more than our genetic inheritance, our social environment, or the sum of the two. We are created by God and have been redeemed by Jesus Christ. In light of these theological claims and other questions, fears and expectations, we recognize that our present human knowledge on this issue is incomplete and finite. It is important that the limits of human knowledge be considered as policy is made. As Christians, we affirm that all human beings, regardless of the method of reproduction, are children of God and bear the Image of God.”[24]
This statement shows clearly that they believe that life begins at conception just as the Catholic church does. The United Methodists see the human embryo as being one that already possesses the individuality of a human being as related to earlier.
Others like the United Church of Christ tend to disagree seeing that they feel that the embryo before 14 days old is not yet defined as being a human life although retaining value and should be respected. Past the point of implantation, they consider it a human life and should not be tampered with. In their statement in 1971 determined that,
“We on the United Church of Christ Committee on Genetics do not object categorically to human pre-embryo research, including research that produces and studies cloned human pre-embryos through the 14th day of fetal development, provided the research is well justified in terms of its objectives, the research protocols show proper respect for the pre-embryos, and that they not be implanted.”[25]
Since that time, the United Church of Christ has not made very much progress in terms of making a more distinctive decision to human embryonic stem cell research. Most of all they urge public discussion of the issue and that any decisions made by government pertaining to federal guidelines for research be brought before religious review boards to help make decisions.
It is highly important for the scientific community to have some set of guidelines so that order can be maintained with respect to humans. Clearly not everyone respects the Christian conservative stance on the stem cell research issue however, if there are no guidelines, anything can be a result. Where there is a lack standards, chaos can result. “Moral dilemmas produced by these procedures will only become more sophisticated and complicated. The uses of each specific technology must be carefully weighed, and cannot be exempt from moral scrutiny.”[26]
Ethically and morally speaking there is no doubt that human embryonic stem cells are a topic that will be hotly debated in the future by religious leaders, researchers and politicians alike. It could be said that human embryonic stem cells and cloning have the potential of becoming another dividing issue similar to the abortion issue that has been problematic over the last ten years. Time will tell.
Much could be said for the reactions that religious leaders and governments have had about stem cells due to the abundance of ink that has been spilled on the subject.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study of stem cell research is a very interesting and fascinating study. The moral and ethical problems that are related to the subject are of great concern.
For humanity, it could be said that the technology to genetically modify organisms has grown exponentially in the last five years and will do the same in the future as well. Given the data that has been written within these few pages it is quite clear that Christians are in the forefront of this argument for human life beginning at conception. For many, such as the United Methodists the embryo represents the future of an individual created by God which is unique possessing qualities that are the mirror image of God. It is imperative then that any embryo should be treated as a human being regardless of the means by which it was conceived.
Yes, there are circumstances that already exist where the human embryo has already been harvested for the purpose of genetic research and are in need of resolution. This is the problem with human embryonic stem cell research. What should the researchers do with the left over cells? Should they be discarded? Should they be frozen for years? There is no way of humanely deal with them once they are created. Despite the cumbersome process that it takes to obtain adult human stem cells, they should be used for the purpose of genetic research with obvious guidelines. These guidelines must include the understanding that they must not be used for the purpose of creating a human undifferentiated, preimplantation type of embryonic stem cell for the purpose of mutation.
It is clear that this science is here to stay and Christians must be aware of the science that is taking place and be ready to give educated scientific alternatives. The harvesting of human embryonic stem cells in this author’s opinion is a Pandora’s Box waiting with a myriad of problems as a result of careless ethical positions. One must be educated on the issues that surround stem cells and not shy away from the science that has such great possibilities.
Stem cell science is definitely in its beginning stages. This research definitely has the potential of relieving the aches and pains of a hurting humanity and should be considered a viable resource for the future. Christians have the responsibility to educate themselves about the issue of human embryonic stem cell research and be able to stand in the gap for those who cannot stand for themselves yet.
Works Cited
Carter Chris, Save the Stem Cells, 12 November, 2001[online] accessed: 30 April 2005. available at
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Nov2001/SavetheStemCellsCampaign.html
Deem Rich, Stem Cell Research/Cloning: Status and Ethics. 4 October 04 [Online] accessed 30 April 2005. available at http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem008.html
Barbour Ian, Ethics in an age of Technology. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.
Cole-Turner Ronald etal., Human Cloning Religious Responses. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.
Dickson Patrick, The Future of Stem Cell Research: Rapid Progress. [online] accessed 30 April 2005. available at http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm
Espejo Roman etal., Human Embryo Experimentation. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Humber James etal., Biomedical Ethics Reviews: Stem Cell Research. Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press, 2004.
Maienschein Jane, Whose View of Life?. Cambridge, MA: London England, 2003.
Naff Clay etal., Gene Therapy. Farmington Hills, MI: 2005.
Rae Scott, Moral Choices. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2000.
Siedler Maurya etal., The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Farmington Hills, MI: 2005.
Shannon Thomas etal., The New Genetic Medicine, Theological and Ethical Reflections. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Ward Christopher, How are Stem Cells Harvested and Grown?. University of Birmingham 21 Feb 2003, [online] accessed 1 May 1, 2005. available at http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Feb2003/1045866973.Cb.r.html
Viegas Jennifer, Stem Cell Research. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003.
[1]Chris Carter, Save the Stem Cells, 12 November, 2001[online] accessed: 30 April 2005 available at http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Nov2001/SavetheStemCellsCampaign.html
[2]Ibid.
[3]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, (New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003), 21f.
[4]Ibid, 19.
[5]Ibid, 18f.
[6]Rich Deem, Stem Cell Research/Cloning: Status and Ethics, 4 October 04 [Online] accessed 30 April 2005 available at http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem008.html
[7]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 42ff.
[8]Jane Maienschein, Whose View of Life?, (Cambridge, MA: London England, 2003), 250.
[9]Patrick Dickson, The Future of Stem Cell Research: Rapid Progress, [online] accessed 30 April 2005 available at http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm
[10]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 34f.
[11]Christopher Ward, How are Stem Cells Harvested and Grown?, University of Birmingham 21 Feb 2003, [online] accessed 1 May 1, 2005 available at http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Feb2003/1045866973.Cb.r.html
[12]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research, 27.
[13]James Humber etal., Biomedical Ethics Reviews: Stem Cell Research, (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2004), 41.
[14]Ian Barbour, Ethics in an age of Technology, (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991), 213.
[15]Suzanne Holland etal., The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 52.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Clay Naff etal., Gene Therapy, (Farmington Hills, MI: 2005), 179.
[18]Maurya Siedler etal., The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, (Farmington Hills, MI: 2005), 70f.
[19]Roman Espejo etal., Human Embryo Experimentation, (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2002), 49.
[20]Jennifer Viegas, Stem Cell Research,11.
[21]Thomas Shannon etal., The New Genetic Medicine, Theological and Ethical Reflections, (Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 147.
[22]Ibid, 128.
[23]Ibid, 143.
[24]Ronald Cole-Turner etal., Human Cloning Religious Responses, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 143f.
[25]Ibid, 150.
[26]Scott Rae, Moral Choices, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 179.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
