LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 390

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

390 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

d. God intends for humans to share in His care for human lives
from beginning to end and from “least” to “greatest.”

We still face the challenge that Christians do in fact continue to
disagree about the application of these principles to pre-implanta-
tion human life. Some hold that these principles apply to all fertil-
ized eggs and that the specific texts discussed in the preceding
section show that God has directly revealed in Scripture the signif-
icance of all pre-implantation human life. Others, however, counter
that God has not spoken directly in Scripture to the issue of the sig-
nificance of all pre-implantation human life, so application of the
agreed-upon principles to pre-implantation human life requires fur-
ther argumentation showing that all fertilized eggs should be in-
cluded under these principles.

When conversing with people who are not convinced that these
passages and principles extend to pre-implantation human life, we
can nonetheless assert that—at the very least—the bias in Scripture
testifies to God’s care for all human life. This comprehensive care
casts reasonable doubt upon attempts to remove embryonic human
life from under the umbrella of God’s love. Furthermore, Scripture
offers no guidelines for exempting certain lives from God’s inter-
est and care. Those who seek to remove embryonic human life from
God’s care and our own owe us decisive arguments to show that
this is morally and spiritually defensible. We do not think that the
reasoning they have set forth is decisive.

Constructive Commentary on Biblically Informed
Theological Perspectives

At this point we return to the biblically informed theological per-
spectives surveyed in part two and offer constructive commentary.

Biblically Informed Inherent Indicator Perspectives

In part two we surveyed approaches that look for some bibli-
cally informed inherent indicator of moral/spiritual significance.
These approaches often make reference to biblical “image of God”
language. We noted that the Christian tradition has offered differ-
ing explanations as to what exactly constitutes the image of God.*°
We also noted disagreements about whether pre-implantation hu-
man life shows the inherent qualities necessary for concluding that
this life should be characterized as bearing an image of God that de-
mands full protection of this life.

We have weighed the contending approaches and find that none
of them succeeds in establishing that pre-implantation human lives
need not be afforded full protection in the way that human lives at
later stages are protected. We believe that in so weighty a matter as
the discarding and destruction of nascent human life, a full burden
of proof lies on those who would remove protections from certain
human lives. In our view, none of the opposing arguments succeeds
in carrying the burden of proof. Meanwhile, biblical faith has am-
ple testimony to God’s care for human lives even prior to implan-
tation in the womb. Consequently, we do not consider that biblically
informed inherent indicator approaches can serve to justify a fail-
ure fully to protect pre-implantation human life.

Biblically Informed Relational/Historical Perspectives

In our survey in part two we also discussed a different and sig-
nificant line of biblical theological argumentation that claims that
a relational/historical approach is best suited to the scriptural data.
We examined Oliver O’Donovan’s perspective resulting from his
reflection on Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. A significant
feature of this viewpoint is the claim that we primarily discern the
moral and spiritual significance of any human life by loving that
life and serving as neighbor to that life. This approach seems to draw
upon the way that the Samaritan in Jesus’ parable discerned who
was his neighbor by the concrete act of loving that neighbor.

O’Donovan’s way of putting the case is summed up in these
words: “It remains for another mode of knowledge to discern the
hypostasis [personal subject] behind the appearances.”*’ Toward

2007 Convention Workbook

the end of his essay he offers a method of discernment: “We dis-
cern persons only by love, by discovering through interaction and
commitment that this human being is irreplaceable.”*§ “To discern
my neighbour I have first to ‘prove’ neighbour to him...To perceive
a brother or a sister, I have first to accept him as such in personal
interaction.”*

With O’Donovan we recognize that IVF and cloning technolo-
gies have provided us with detailed knowledge of human begin-
nings and have puzzled us by “presenting to us members of our own
species who are doubtfully proper objects of compassion and
love.” But while we recognize how puzzling the specific details
can be, we again note that in so weighty a matter as the discarding
and destruction of nascent human life a full burden of proof lies on
those who would remove protections from certain human lives.
None of the puzzles raised by detailed scientific knowledge of hu-
man beginnings succeeds in carrying this burden of proof. Indeed,
while we are serious in giving modern science its due, we consider
that the biblical call to discern neighbors through love and care is
much more plain than the opposing views suggesting that we need
not protect human life in its earliest beginnings. Consequently, we
do not consider that biblically informed “relational/historical” ar-
guments can serve to justify a failure fully to protect pre-implanta-
tion human life. In fact, we consider that this line of reasoning calls
us back again to love and service of “the least of these,” our sisters
and brothers.

We commend further wrestling with the details of a well-
grounded scriptural, Christological and Trinitarian approach. Re-
flection on Christian thought concerning Trinitarian persons and, in
particular, Christ’s divine/human personhood, can enable us to ex-
amine in greater depth what it is to be a person with full moral/spir-
itual status. This approach can also carry the discussion beyond an
exclusive focus on an isolated individual’s “right to life.” Instead,
the conversation can expand beyond those somewhat “set piece”
and “sterile” debates into a consideration of the meaning of human
fellowship with God and with one another.

Constructive Commentary on Scientific and Philosophical
Perspectives

Our fictional Pastor Solomon is also persuaded that this first line
of biblically informed theological reasoning connects closely with
a second. Human embryos, beginning with conception, are set on a
course of development that leads continuously to an unfolding of a
unique human life.

We proceed to a careful examination of key scientific and philo-
sophical approaches that were surveyed in part two. In our survey
we observed that when the moral status of pre-implantation human
life is addressed from a scientific and/or philosophical perspective,
the opposing sides divide in a way similar to the divisions in bibli-
cally informed arguments. Some approach the issue looking for in-
herent indicators while others emphasize relational/historical
considerations. We find it noteworthy that both approaches typi-
cally begin with agreement that we are asking questions about pre-
implantation human life and that we typically accord full
moral/spiritual status to living humans. This agreement reinforces
our position that the burden of proof lies with those who would deny
protection to pre-implantation human life.

While we agree with those who maintain that pre-implantation
human life should be fully protected, we acknowledge that the rel-
ative newness of our engagement with pre-implantation human life
and our consequent unfamiliarity with embryonic life keep the ar-
guments from achieving a character of transparent obviousness. The
duty to protect pre-implantation human life will not seem com-
pletely compelling to all thoughtful participants in the debates. Our
own strategy remains one of demonstrating that no contrary argu-
ment has achieved a level of obviousness that would lift the burden
from us to protect pre-implantation human life.