Science in Christian Perspective
Human Engineering and Christian Ethical Values
MILLARD J. ERICKSON
Bethel Theological Seminary
St. Paul, Minnesota 55112
From: JASA 30 (March 1978):16-19.
The bio-medical revolution has produced techniques with great potential for
affecting the nature and behavior of man. Accompanying this power, however, are
grave ethical problems. Our knowledge of techniques of human control has not
been accompanied by equal wisdom in the employment of these techniques. The
Christian, however, has a high stake in the application of such methodologies.
There are three basic methods of arriving at ethical conclusions: the
legalistic, the situational, and the principial. Of these three, only the
principial seems to hold promise of being of help to us in solving these
problems. Accordingly, we must ask what principles the Christian faith supplies
us. Among the pertinent ones are man's role as a dominion-haver, the importance
of freedom, truth, and the significance of individuals.
In July, 1975, a group of scientists, theologians, and ethicists gathered at
Wheaton, Illinois, in an International Conference on Human Engineering and the
Future of Man. Here evangelical Christians grappled with ethical problems
growing out of three areas of human engineering: genetic control, brain control,
and behavior manipulation.
The necessity of such a gathering is a tribute to man's success, not his
failure. The progress of man in natural sciences and behavioral sciences has
given him an increased ability to understand, affect, and control human behavior
and even human nature. For this we should be properly appreciative. Man's
ethical understanding has not progressed at an equal pace, however. How to
handle the problems produced by our improved technologies-this is the real
issue.
It is encouraging that evangelical Christians gathered to discuss these issues
at this stage of the development of the problems. Too often the Christian church
has had little to say about great ethical issues during the formative period,
perhaps because Christians were unaware of the real issues at that time. Then
when someone began to apply the insights and methods in ways offensive to
Christian morality, Christians protested. The issues are still at the stage
where public policy is being determined, and can be affected by our input.
Nature of the Problem
Let us utilize for a moment the technique sometimes employed in movies and
books, referred to as 'flash
back." Consider the following alternating scenes which move between
biblical incidents and contemporary ethical problems. It might go something like
this:
Scene 1. Gideon believes that Jehovah God is leading him into battle with the
Midianites. He wants to ascertain that God is really going to deliver Israel by
his hand. To determine this definitely, he places a fleece on the ground and
asks God to show him if He will d0 this, by making the fleece wet and the
surrounding ground dry, and then reversing the process, making the fleece dry
and the ground wet. This God does, and Gideon goes out to defeat the Midianites.
Scene 2. A young couple sit with their family doctor, as he interprets for them
the results of their genetic screening test. Carefully he explains to them that
should they decide to have children, there is a 25% possibility that any child
born to them will have cystic fibrosis. What should they do, they wonder. Ought
they to proceed, or not?
Scene 3. A man is brought before a judge of Israel, charged with having killed
another man. Calmly and carefully the judge determines the facts of the ease.
Witnesses testify that this one did indeed take the life of the other. There is
no evidence that this was an act of self-defense, or an accident. Quickly
the verdict is reached and announced: the law says this man must die.
Scene 4. A lecturer is sharing with an audience the possibilities of electronic
stimulation of the brain. He pictures for them a situation in which a group of
demonstrators advances upon City Hall to present their grievances to the mayor.
Only a group of unarmed police stand between them and their goal. The police
chief presses a button on a small radio transmitter in his hand. The protestors
stop. He pushes another button and, like the bull in Jose Delgado's experiment,
the group turns and obediently trots away.' They were responding to an
electrical signal sent to a control center of their brains via electrodes
surgically implanted during an earlier imprisonment. Now, the lecturer asks, is
this type of control right and legitimate, or is it improper?
Scene 5. Jesus and the Pharisees are engaged in heated debate about the
observance of the Sabbath. The charge raised by the Pharisees is that Jesus and
his disciples have broken the Sabbath. They have performed miracles of healing
on the Sabbath day. They have also on another occasion been guilty of gathering
food on the Sabbath. These activities constitute labor, and violate the law,
which says that the Sabbath is a day of rest, and no labor is to be done on it.
"No,' says Jesus, "you have misunderstood. The Sabbath is made for
man, not man for the Sabbath."
Scene 6. Two parents of an elementary school child are discussing with the
school principal the educational philosophy and methodology employed in the
school. Because incentives are employed to encourage certain types of activity,
the parents believe the children are being manipulated.
It is confusing, is it not? Were we able to have an actual sound-and-sight
presentation, it would be even more bewildering. The sudden shifts between the
biblical world and that of virtual science fiction seem strange indeed, because
of the radical differences between those two worlds, both of which may seem
rather foreign to most of us. They highlight however the problem faced by those
who would be responsible biblical Christians, trying to live with one foot in
the Bible and the other in this strange world of developing issues. How does the
Christian relate the teachings of the Word of God to these problems? The
selection of a style of ethical decision-making must precede the actual
determination of solutions to any of those problems. Several different
approaches to applying the Bible to ethical problems have been suggested, and
are currently being practiced by various Christians.
Types of Ethical Methodologies
One of these is sometimes referred to as the legalistic approach. It attempts to
derive specific absolute statements from Scripture, in the fashion in which a
prohibition of murder is deduced from Exodus 20:13, "You shall not
kill" (murder). On this method of treatment, unexceptionable rules can be
established on a one-to-one basis, from Scripture.
The problem with this approach for our purposes is that it is exceedingly
difficult to find biblical statements which can be employed in this fashion. The
situations which we are considering here did not arise in Biblical
Once the enduring ethical principles of Scripture have been found and extracted, these must be carried over from biblical settings and related to contemporary situations.
times, nor were they even imagined then. Theft problems were not sufficiently
similar to these cases that we could simply treat the latter as instances of the
former. This method scarcely can succeed.
The second major option is situationism. This would ask, with respect to any
issue, "what is the most loving thing to do?"2 On these grounds,
nothing is really right or wrong in itself. Anything, even murder or adultery,
is potentially good and right and is made so by whether it most fully embodies
and expresses agape love. The problem with this approach, however, is that it is
insufficiently concrete to be of real help. What really is the most loving
course of action? Without knowing what is best for man, without being able to
distinguish clearly the different courses of action and knowing their
consequences, it is very difficult to choose among them. The problems connected
with situationism and its calculating method have been elaborated at
considerable length in several places. The dilemma seems to be that situationism
either slips into a new kind of legalism on the one hand, or else is unable to
make any objective ethical judgments, on the other.3"
The third method of ethical decision-making is principialism. This maintains
that there are objective sources of ethical guidance in the biblical revelation,
but that these are found (for our present purposes) not in concrete rules, but
in principles which are more numerous than simply the general principle,
"act in the most
oving way."4 This would seem to be the only approach available
to us that can give us any real guidance.
In this principial method, the concrete forms of biblical ethical injunctions
are not absolutized as they appear in the Scriptures. Rather, an attempt is made
to determine the underlying principle upon which a command or prohibition is
based. This will be more general than a rule or law. In some cases the principle
will be so closely tied to the particular rule in which it is embodied in
Scripture as to be virtually identical with it, but often this is not the case.
The principle will be of a timeless character while specific biblical rules may
be culture-bound.
Once the enduring ethical principles of Scripture have been found and extracted,
these must be carried over from biblical settings and related to contemporary
situations, Often this will mean that two or more ethical principles will bear
upon a given situation, and the relative weight of these will have to be
determined, and the principles combined into new currently appropriate
guidelines or directives. This will not be easily done, but it is extremely
important.
The aim of the remainder of this paper is consequently to trace out some of the
salient biblical and theological principles that bear upon the decisions
encountered in the areas which have been presented to us. At some points we
suggest implications of these principles for the ethical decisions, but for the
most part we offer these only as aids and suggestions to be incorporated into
our decision-making.
Pertinent Ethical Principles
As the psalmist contemplates what man is and does he shows both pleasure and
amazement (Psa. 139:14). And well he might, for man is truly the summit of God's
earthly creation. He, of all the creatures, is described as being in the image
and likeness of God. In the creative genius of man both man and God are
glorified, for it is God who is the source of all man's positive powers, and who
has entrusted to him the abilities which we see displayed in the activities of
knowledge gathering and control. The knowledge explosion of the past few decades
is virtually overwhelming in its depth and magnitude. With knowledge goes power,
the power to predict and control, especially as the potential for applying it to
man increases. In the techniques of human engineering there is great possibility
either for good or for evil. Man may employ this to magnify and heighten his
likeness to God, or to negate this Godlikeness.
Care and caution are required in these endeavors, because man is limited in his
understanding. He possesses the ability to discover truth which he does not have
the wisdom to apply. Although the technology is morally neutral, man's
finiteness means that he might unintentionally do harm with it. The inventors of
thalidomide undoubtedly intended that their discovery should bring only good
results, but were unable to anticipate some of its side effects. Further, the
Bible teaches that man is a sinner, both by birth and by choice. Consequently,
there is considerable likelihood that he will pervert good into evil by
misapplying it.
When God created man and placed him in the Garden of Eden, He commanded him to
have dominion over every living thing (Gen. 1:26-28). This Christian doctrine of
dominion-having has sometimes been blamed for the ecological crisis which
threatens to overwhelm our world.5 Supposedly, the command to have
dominion has instead been understood to mean to dominate, so that man has
exploited and plundered the creation. This, however, is a misunderstanding of
the nature of the command. In its background is the concept of the sovereign or
monarch in ancient Israel.6 The ruler there was not to dominate the people for
his own self-aggrandizement. Rather, his position was a trust given him in which
he would use his authority in such a way as to develop the kingdom for the
maximum benefit of his subjects. He ruled for their sake, not for his own. Thus
man as dominion-bayer is not to extract all that he can from nature for his own
satisfaction. Instead, he should seek to understand it in order to develop it to
its maximum potential, that it may fulfill God's intended plan for it. Thus, if
we conceive the command to have dominion as including the study, understanding,
and control of those aspects of man which he shares with the rest of creation,
it is essential that this be done for the benefit and development of man, never
for his exploitation.
Three other biblical concepts that bear upon the question of human engineering
are freedom, truth and the importance of individuals. These are part of the
nature of God Himself, and part of what He expects of man.
The freedom of man is assumed everywhere in Scripture. This is particularly
evident in God's dealings with him. Each person is given the opportunity of
choosing to accept or reject God's offer of grace. Never is he coerced. When
Jesus related to persons, He respected their freedom. In the case of John the
Baptist (Luke 7:18-23), He did not threaten or cajole. He did not simply assert
His authority and demand response. He presented John with the evidences and let
him make his own decision. Rather than creating a set of robots or manipulating
men, God took the risk of giving them genuine freedom, knowing that some would
abuse it.
This means that in human engineering, care will be taken to preserve that same
human freedom. Freedom, unfortunately, is one of those slippery words which
frequently are simply used undefined. It would seem to mean at least that the
person should be as aware as possible of the factors which are influencing his
decisions and behavior. Hence, any type of control through electrical
stimulation, like that envisioned by Delgado7 (improbable though it
may be) would seem to be improper. Here the person would be driven by factors
which he does not understand and with which he cannot cope. Similarly, none of
these techniques should be employed upon a person unless he has freely given his
consent, or if he is permanently incapable of doing so, someone else responsible
for him has given such consent. In some areas such as genetic control, it is
difficult to judge whether an encroachment upon the freedom of the person is
involved, or whether it is rather a ease of actually constituting him what he is
to he. Here it would seem that the parents at least should make the decision.
In this connection we should also note again the dominion-having referred to
earlier. This role was assigned to Adam, the head of the human race, who at this
point was actually the entire race. The word Adam is not only a proper name. It
is also a Hebrew noun, meaning man. Thus the command was given not just to an
individual or to part of the human race, but to all mankind. All persons have
this privilege and authority. It is therefore wrong for one person or group to
exercise dominion over another individual or group, in such a way as to deprive
them of their dominion-having. On these grounds, slavery is clearly wrong. The
same is true of any form of control in which one's human initiative is
surrendered to another. We must be certain that any techniques adopted and
employed do not violate the basic rights of persons.
Another significant issue is truth. Basic to the very nature of God is this
matter of veracity. He always represents things as they really are. Similarly,
He expects that man will seek to know things as they truly are and will
represent them that way. God is the author of reality, and truth basically is
genuine contact with that reality, or knowing it as it is. The devil is the
ultimate source of error or of deception, which is a misapprehension of reality.
Experiencing reality correctly is therefore good, for it in effect puts one into
relationship with God's works. Thus processes and procedures which conduce to a
more correct experience of reality would be good while those which lead him to
experiences which are not faithful to the way things really are must be regarded
as bad.
All human emotions have their proper place. It is appropriate to feel any of
them in certain situations. Anger, fear, depression, elation, excitement should
be felt in certain circumstances, but not in others. Any type of technology or
control which helps the person experience an emotion appropriate to the
situation is right and ought to be practiced, while any control which produces
emotions for which there is no objective basis ought to be avoided. Hence, a
frontal lobotomy which eliminates irrational fears would (on this criterion) be
permissable, while a person simply pushing a button endlessly to produce
feelings of euphoria when there is no real basis for such feeling, or even in
the face of stimuli which ought to produce the contrary reaction, would be
illegitimate.
Part of the reason is this. Emotions, like physical pain, can be used by God to
alert us to situations we might otherwise overlook. For example, depression,
fear, or anger call our attention to a situation needing to be dealt with. If
the person has been so affected that he does not feel these emotions in the
presence of the objective circumstances which ought to call them forth, he may
fail to cope with them, and harm may come either to him or to someone else. In
this sense, our control or engineering ought to be aimed at contributing to and
enhancing fully informed response to reality, rather than detracting from it.
We also note the importance of each individual person to God. Jesus indicated
this in numerous ways: In His statement that no sparrow can fall to the ground
without the knowledge of the father, and that we are of more value than many
sparrows (Matt. 10:28-31); in His declaration that God knows even the number of
the hairs of our heads (Matt. 10:30); in the parable of the lost sheep, in which
99 were safely inside the fold, but the shepherd left them to go and seek the
one lost sheep (Luke 15:30). All of these indicate that each individual is an
end in himself, valuable to God. Each ought to be treated that way, not as a
means to the end of another's welfare. Thus, it would be wrong to experiment
upon a person, even if many other persons might benefit from it, unless that
person fully understands what is being done and why, and has given his informed
consent. This means that extra precautions must be taken with populations which
are under a certain amount of constraint, such as the military and prison
inmates. The CIA's experimentation with LSD upon certain of its employees is
particularly reprehensible on these grounds.
Having noted these several cautions and limitations upon our attempts at human
engineering, we must see the nature of the positive responsibilities which we
have in this connection. Among the values taught and practiced by Jesus were
such qualities as compassion and mercy. Frequently, Jesus Himself healed those
who came to Him with diseases. He still works miraculously on some occasions. He
has, however, also given us medical science and a host of allied disciplines as
means to the continuation of His ministry of mercy. Therefore as His agents we
should employ every legitimate means to alleviate suffering, or preferably, to
prevent it.
There is a particular responsibility to refine and develop these techniques and
to make persons aware of their availability. For example, genetic control
properly applied has great potential for preventing some of the serious
genetically linked diseases such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and PKU.
The Christian has a stake in encouraging research in genetic screening, in order
to develop tests for additional diseases, and more accurate tests for those
which can be tested for. Those who are in a position to influence prospective
parents, such as pastors doing premarital counselling, should inform them of the
possible dangers of genetic defects, particularly where indicated by family
history, and the availability of screening. The principle of freedom mentioned
earlier however, indicates that the decision to avail themselves of this
information and the action to be taken upon it should he made by the persons
themselves.
A problem arises in connection with cases where the actions of persons will
affect the welfare of others. In the example above, the parents are making a
decision which may bring into existence a child who will experience a great deal
of suffering, or who will be a severe economic burden upon society. At what
point society should intervene for the benefit of others is a question which
cannot easily be determined.
In brief, it would seem that the use of these techniques to remove defective or
diseased conditions is permissable or even desirable, while attempts to produce
some superior qualities or even a superior breed of human beings would be
considerably less justifiable. Problematic is the question of just what is
"normal," and what is not. Without an answer to this question, the
line between the therapeutic and the superadditive is exceedingly difficult to
draw.
The possible spiritual value of human engineering ought not to be overlooked,
either. Frequently, the Christian's need to grow in the qualities that
constitute Christian character requires more than merely instruction in
Christian matters. The connection between truth understood and believed, and the
actual behavior of the person frequently is imperfect. This means that
irrational factors modify the response of that person. Maturity would mean the
reduction or elimination of these factors. It would therefore seem proper to use
psychological and other means to help bring about a functioning connection
between beliefs and actions. These should not be regarded as a substitute for or
competition with the grace of God. Rather, they should be considered means
through which He can and does work.
Excessive optimism about the spiritual accomplishments of human engineering
should be avoided, however. Some, such as Delgado, have expected to be able to
accomplish considerable changes in the human race.8 There will never be
spiritual salvation by genetic, brain, or behavior control. The problem of sin
runs deep in man: it will be rectified only by that direct, supernatural act of
God which Jesus referred to as the "new birth."
REFERENCES
1Jose M. it. Delgado, Physical Control of the Mind Toward a
Psychocivilized Society (New York; Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969).
2Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1966).
3Paul Ramsey, Deeds and Rules in Christian Ethics (New York:
Scribner, 1967, pp. 159-176.
4Millard J. Erickson, Relativism in Contemporary Christian Ethics
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), pp. 129-153.
5Lynn White, Jr., "The Historical Roots of our Ecological
Crisis," The Environmental Handbook, ed. Garrett de Bell (New York:
Ballentine Books, 1970), p. 26.
6Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1955), p.
921-2.
?Delgado, Op. Cit., 1969, pp. 184 ff.
8lbid, part V.