Tag Archives: Faith and Culture

Posted on

But It’s Still Eugenics…

“Having left behind pseudoscientific racial theories, it’s easy for us to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we have in common with them. First, a relentless desire for mastery and control, not only over our own lives but over the very marrow and sinew of generations yet unborn. And second, a belief in our own fundamental goodness, no matter to what ends our mastery is turned.”

This is the commentary of Ross Douthat (op-ed writer for the New York Times) as he reflects on the incredible technology available to us today and danger of our good intentions ending in Eugenics (read the rest his article here). This power will give our society the ability to create genetic 2nd class citizens if they are not careful.

Bioengineering and bioethics are areas where the Christian worldview offers some significant moral reasoning…if our culture will listen.

Here are two questions and principle from a group of bioethicists that must become common knowledge in our churches. They will help guide us as we face an ever-expanding buffet of biotechnologies.

The first question: “Does the technology facilitate healing or restoration from disease or disability, or is it for reengineering (so-called enhancement)?”* Christians need to say clearly that we are for therapeutic uses of biotechnology.

The second question: “Does the technology require or promote the commodification or destruction of human life? Does the technology demean, debase, or degrade individuals?”* Christians must stand up for all of humanity — especially the weak, impoverished, and defenseless.

Finally, as technological progress is made at a dizzying pace, we must not forget that the “fundamental human problem of humankind is not physical or mental inadequacy, but sin.”* Whether it is in economics or genetics, we are tempted to seek a Utopia where technology can save us. It can’t. It can alleviate much suffering, but it cannot save us. We are broken, and only God can heal our deepest wounds through Jesus Christ. The pride that exists as we develop biotechnologies will be expressed in the way these technologies are used in the future.

God is not surprised. He knows the end from the beginning and will be with us in the midst of the unknown challenges and opportunities (Isaiah 46:10). May God give us the grace and wisdom to be good stewards of the technology we have been entrusted with for the good of humanity.

I go in to more detail and offer more resources in my book Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture.

*For more on these quotations, see Biotechnology and the Human Good

Like us on Facebook

Posted on

“Gays are being denied equal rights today just as African-Americans were denied equal rights”

Alan Shlemon continues our series: Let me be blunt: denying same-sex couples from marriage is not the same as denying interracial couples from it. Although anti-miscegenation laws were immoral, the same mistake is not happening today. And despite the rhetorical force of making the comparison, merely claiming it’s the same does not make it so.

One of the problems with this comparison is that it presumes sexual orientation is a genetically predetermined trait like race. But it’s not, as I’ve argued in a previous post. Numerous researchers have also testified to this. Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project to identify every human gene, has said regarding homosexuality: “Whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations…”[i]Harvard geneticist and homosexual, Dean Hamer, admitted that, “The best recent study suggests that female sexual identification is more a matter of environment than heredity.”[ii] Even the American Psychological Association, a group that advances homosexual causes, doesn’t claim that genes determine sexual orientation.

They say, “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”[iii]
Homosexuality, then, develops also from environmental factors, not merely genetic ones. And since environmental factors vary in type, frequency, and degree, homosexuality is not inescapable. Depending on your developmental environment, you could or could not develop same-sex attractions.

Race, however, is entirely genetic and therefore inescapable. You’re not born an African American – you’re conceived as one. Your race is determined the moment the chromosomes of the sperm and egg blend together. Nothing will change that. Neither your mother’s diet, the hormones in her womb, nor intrauterine trauma will alter your birth as an African American. And once you’re born, your race is impervious to cultural, social, or psychological influences during childhood development. Nothing can alter – even slightly – your race.

That means homosexuals can’t claim they’re like African Americans in the sense that they are born that way. Their plight is not the same. African Americans are genetically born that way. Homosexuals are not.

But the differences grow more significant. Since homosexuality is not merely the product of genes, it is mutable. Homosexuals can and do change. I personally know men who have changed. This type of mutability has been observed for thousands of years and documented by researchers for the last one hundred years (I’ve written about this in a previous post). In fact, sexual orientation in females is quite fluid.

Actress Anne Heche is an example. She grew up as a heterosexual, got involved in a lesbian relationship with Ellen DeGeneres, then married a man with whom she had a child, and now is living with another man. The same is true of former “Sex and the City” star, Cynthia Nixon. She grew up heterosexual, married a man, and had two children. In 2004, she became a lesbian. Nixon also infuriated the homosexual community by claiming that her change in orientation was, “a choice.” She went on to explain: “I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me… Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?”[iv]
My point is not that sexual orientation is a choice. I’m simply acknowledging that it’s mutable for some people.

Race, however, is immutable. I don’t know any African Americans that have changed their race. None of them have become Swedish for a few years. It can’t happen, even in principle.

But there’s even a more significant problem with comparing homosexuals with African Americans, especially with regards to the issue of marriage. Interracial couples can marry because they can fulfill an essential function of marriage. As Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse has explained, marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn’t impact that function in any way.

Homosexual couples, on the other hand, don’t include both sexes. Not only are they incapable – by nature – to produce children, but they are also ill-suited to raise kids who need a mother and a father (I’ve argued this in a previous post). That’s why the state has never sanctioned the relationship of two men or two women, but they sanction interracial unions so long as they’re heterosexual.

Homosexuals are hoping to convince the culture that their plight is the same as African Americans. Naturally, this has a strong, rhetorical effect. But with careful reflection it becomes apparent the two groups are not parallel in meaningful ways. That’s because race and sex are not the same. This makes all the difference.

[i] F. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2007), 260.
[ii] D. Hamer and P. Copeland, Living with Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1009), 188.
[iii] http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx, accessed 4/30/12.
[iv] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html?pagewanted=all, accessed 4/30/12.

Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow


Posted on

The Temptation of Tim Tebow (A penalty flag has been thrown)

“I’m throwing a penalty flag,” writes Esther Fleece in the Washington Post, “The infraction? Roughing the passer. As well as millions of people worldwide, some people of faith, all people of conviction, who live by the same values the passer lives by.

The injured party? New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow. The guilty party? AshleyMadison.com, a Web site whose sole contribution to the greater cultural good is helping married men and women arrange secret adulterous affairs. You may have heard how Ashley Madison has offered a bounty of $1 million to anyone who can offer proof of having had sex with Tebow, the famously and unapologetically Christian athlete who has publicly declared – because the media have been rude enough to ask him the question – that he is, at age 24 and single, a virgin.
“Sports and sex (and of course, infidelity) go hand in hand,” said AshleyMadison.com founder and CEO Noel Biderman in a news release. “If Mr. Tebow is indeed abstaining from adult relationships, I would encourage him to find a nice lady or two and enjoy his youth and fame as much as possible.
“We are beyond the days where pre-marital sex has a social stigma, and it is my hope that soon we will also feel the same about infidelity.”
Let’s set aside for the purposes of this discussion the crassly transparent attempt by Biderman to make a buck, or at least generate a few headlines promoting his “business,” by taking advantage of Tebow’s name and fame. Let’s focus instead on the smarmy assumption at the root of his stunt – namely, that abstinence before marriage is an impossibility and/or a silly relic from the past….” (read the rest)

Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow

Posted on

New York Times’ Columnist Ross Douthat Talks About the State of American Christianity

Interesting interview:

“In his new book “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics,” Ross Douthat, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times, writes about how Christianity lost its central place in American life through a variety of factors, among them the religion’s failed attempts to accommodate secular trends; a strong identification of the church with strictly conservative politics; a lack of great religious-inspired art; and the appeal to a “God within” that tailors spirituality to the citizens of a self-help age. I recently spoke with Mr. Douthat about the book via e-mail. Below are excerpts of the conversation.
“Bad Religion”
Q.
Does the book presume that a widespread, mainstream Christianity is necessary to have a thriving United States?
A.
It depends what you mean by “thriving.” I’m not arguing that if we don’t all repent our sins tomorrow, we’re going to be conquered by the Chinese or collapse into a Balkans-style civil war. I’m quite confident that America will remain rich, powerful and relatively stable even if the religious trends I’m describing continue apace. But I do think that institutional Christianity has offered something important to our nation — sometimes a moral critique of our excesses, sometimes a kind of invisible mortar for our common life — that today’s heresies are unlikely to provide.
Q.
What do you mean by the words “heretics” and “heresy” in the book?
A.
I mean expressions of religious belief that are no longer traditionally Christian, but remain deeply influenced by Christianity — and fascinated, in particular, by the figure of Jesus of Nazareth — in ways that are hard to describe as post-Christian or non-Christian or secular. It’s a loaded word, obviously, but I think it’s the best way to describe the religious landscape in America today: Diverse, fragmented, polarized, and yet Christ-haunted all the same.
Q.
Evangelicals and Catholics united with each other “in the cause of culture war.” You argue that culture war is not the best use of Christianity, but is it the strongest glue left to it?
A.
Sometimes it seems to be. In an era of weakened religious affiliation and intensified partisanship, the zeal that’s associated with political combat can supply believers with the feeling of cohesion and common purpose that the institutional churches aren’t always able to supply. The danger here is obvious: If American Christianity is just one expression of the identity politics of conservative America, then it isn’t really much of a Christianity at all. But at the same time, it isn’t enough to say that believers should just stay away from politics entirely. Like all Americans, Christians have an obligation be engaged citizens, and to bring their beliefs to bear on the great debates in our society. If they shirked that duty, you wouldn’t just lose Jerry Falwell or Al Sharpton – you’d lose Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King.
Q.
You write about current religious popular art feeling “middlebrow, garish and naïve” or “ingenuous and tacky.” How might that change, and how important is it that it does?
A.
One of the striking things about the post-1960s era is how unimportant sacred art and architecture have become in our culture. Obviously some of that reflects the secular biases of our artists and intellectuals. But some of it reflects the straightforward failures of believers to write the novels and make the films and build the cathedrals that would testify, more eloquently than any polemic, to the Christian view of God and man. The critic Alan Jacobs observed to me once that much of what remains of highbrow Christian culture in the West is sustained not by theologians or bishops or pastors, but by poets and novelists and memoirists — C.S. Lewis and Thomas Merton and W.H. Auden and Flannery O’Connor and so on. He’s right, and we need more like them.”

Read the rest of John William’s interview with Ross Douthat here.
Here’s my perspective and what Christians can do to better engage culture.
How do you think Christians are doing? What do you think needs to change?

Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow

Posted on

Want a free copy of Think Christianly?

Then consider being a part of the Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture blog tour sponsored by Zondervan. Click here to get your free copy and all the details! Please share on Facebook and Twitter. Here is what Chuck Colson said about the book:

“As someone who has devoted many years of ministry to teaching Christian worldview. I am thrilled to see dynamic and faithful worldview leaders like Jonathan Morrow stepping to the fore. Think Christianly, in a compelling and accessible way, equips Christians young and old to engage the culture winsomely, intelligently, and with confidence.”

– Chuck Colson,
Founder, Prison Fellowship and the Colson Center
 for Christian Worldview
Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow