To Clone or Not To Clone

There was an article in today's Minneapolis StarTribune entitled "Stakes are High in New Debate Over
Cloning." Basically, the GOP in Minnesota is proposing a bill that would ban "human cloning." I put the phrase in quotes because, like many of the terms and concepts that we use (dignity, freedom, right), there is no one clear, univocal idea behind it. The article describes how the law is unclear if human cloning means a complete human person or merely cloning a human cell. If it is the latter, certain types of research, such as stem-cell and therapeutic cloning, both of which can use cells from embryos in the attempt to figure our how to "fix" cells in a patient, might be restricted then as well.

The article's main thrust is largely economic, as it basically looks at what might happen to bio-tech research and engineering in Minnesota if the law passes. Ultimately, the slant largely asks a reader to think about the employment and economic development issues at stake. I am always disappointed that the deeper questions, such as what makes a human human and what are the values behind research into cloning, don't really play a part in such a conversation. So much of our political rhetoric is economically framed. Sometimes I think the new priests are economists, with ideas such as efficiency, confidence and productivity being the true doctrines that frame our culture.

I may be biting off more than I can chew, but:

I want to step back a bit and try and think through the cloning issue within a different frame, one that thinks about value as being grounded in the Christian God. The issue of human cloning at one level is an easy issue. God creates life, meaning the idea or attempt at cloning a complete human is irresponsible, ignoring the created and dependent nature of humans as a whole, spiritual and physical, and unique creature.

The hard part comes when faced with the nitty-gritty about cells, rather than a whole organism. It is thinking about the good that such cloning after years of research, may do to a diabetic or a sufferer from Parkinson's disease. Is it "right" to use stem cells from aborted or discarded embryos for such a greater good? This question is a hard one, no matter what one's moral commitments. On the one hand, being Christian includes a command that one love the neighbor as oneself. But who is the neighbor? Is it the diabetic in front of you? The embryo? Clearly, at some level, both are. On the other hand, this command asks not about consequences. To love the neighbor does not ask you to rationally calculate whether some option will bring about the greatest good in the world (a main tenet of Utilitarianism). Instead, it demands action, it demands that you address the needs of the person that you see as best you can, not knowing or focusing on anticipated outcomes in the process.

One key element in my own thinking about this issue has to do with the potential for and the actuality of life. There is a long tradition in the West, prominent in Aristotle's thought, that makes this distinction. Consequently, to think about cloning also asks about who has the highest actuality of life? This question relates well to Jesus' statement in John's Gospel (10:10) that he has come to bring the fullness of life. In short, connecting actuality of life with fullness suggests that God has called us to gracefully work to help everyone attain a fullness of life. So a further dilemma becomes thinking about what fullness is and how it relates to the potential and actuality of life.

So how might we tie the love of neighbor with fullness of life with potential and actuality?  I suggest that such a line of reasoning is best centered on linking fullness with actuality for what is actual is concrete, it is who we see in our daily life, it is our neighbor. For example, if a loved one suffers from a debilitating disease, we see them lacking the actual fullness of life. We see them suffer. And if human creativity can help partially bring about God's gift of fullness through such research, then we play a part in linking fullness with the actuality of life. And as such, a discarded embryo, say one that was aborted because it had a major genetic defect, had a potential for life that was lacking. To use it as a means to bring about fullness and actuality is to transform this lack of potential into an expression of loving the neighbor.

And notice what I am not trying to defend abortion in this post, which is maybe a little disingenuous but abortion deserves its own post, but instead how we prioritize our love by thinking about potential and actuality of life and how we can use some of the building blocks that are largely potential life to help those with the actuality of life.

Obviously, one concern on the part of Pro-Lifers is that such research might encourage the destruction of embryos. It is to see such use as objectifying life, using it as a means to an end, whereas all life is in itself an end. This argument is compelling in many ways. But it also ignores the fact that unfortunately, tragically, all life does not have the same potential for fullness and actuality. I still remember the day when our doctor asked us whether we wanted to have our fetus genetically tested. Knowing what types of genetic cracks and rips is then supposed to help a parent think about the potential for life of the fetus. With this testing, which raises a whole other can of ethical worms, we were asked to think about the type of life that our child would be genetically pre-disposed to, knowing that there are many horrific, terrible diseases that can kill a baby. So as a result, there will be terminated pregnancies, there will be embryos that will be discarded, that lack much potential for life. And yes, this view raises many more issues (such as possibility of cures for the disorder or ignoring the giftedness of all life), but life is tragic, not all life is genetically created equal. And yes, we must be careful with this view, making sure throughout that we respect life, both its potential and its actuality, while admitting this tragic dimension.

And in the end, because we live in a politically liberal society (and thus not a theocracy) that values the freedom of religion, we can never compel someone to become religious. We can never force someone to accept a particular value system. Women have a right thus to decide what to do with their bodies, hopefully a choice that they will make in consultation with families, friends and conscience. And we as Christians must love and support them, drawing on God's grace no matter our opinion about whether such an act is right or wrong to show them God's love. Abortion is and has always been (e.g. St. John's Wort) a part of the world we live in and to believe that outlawing abortion will end abortion is a chimera, just as much as world peace. Instead, we need to best think about how God calls us to fullness of life, to think about how to love our actual neighbor.

Here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118887039.html

Super-Rich.... and Less Than Happy

Amidst all of the rancor between the various constituencies in this country, the chaotic, scary, sad mess in Japan, and the continuing confusion in the Middle East, today's post is about the ethical complications of an article I read in The Atlantic, one that raises questions about wealth, desire, love, hopes, goals and the good life. Entitled "Secret Fears of the Super Rich," it describes a sociological research center at Boston College that sent questionnaires to people with over $25 Million dollars asking them about their fears, hopes, worries and goals. As I have clear populist leanings, and can't imagine what $25 Million dollars looks like, nonetheless what to spend it on, I was somewhat reluctant in reading it. And I was rather shocked to find that it got me thinking about some underlying cultural assumptions about wealth and value.

Using the responses from around 165 households, the article describes how such wealthy folk are generally more dissatisfied than satisfied overall. Why?
--Idle Hands make Idle Minds: They worry about work, not because they need to, but because work is one of the major measures and instillers of value. And because they don't have to work, they struggle with a sense of societal purpose and meaning.
--Keep Up With the Joneses: They don't consider themselves financially secure. Because of the circles many of them run in, there is always someone with more wealth that sets a higher bar for financial security.
--The Grass is always Greener: They worry about social acceptance. Their fear is that if others knew that they were wealthy, they will be a social pariah. 
--Worry Warts: They worry about their children, especially about making sure that their kids use any wealth responsibly. Many aren't sure how to transfer wealth to later generations without turning them into wealthy brats or cause them to become resentful by setting goals they have to achieve (college, job, etc.) before the money is doled out.
--Give the Shirt Off Your Back: Many of them are happiest when they give their money away through a foundation.

Lots of cliches about money, eh? So what's my point in all of this blather about an experience that most of us can't even comprehend? Well, in a world that largely suggests success has to do with financial security, having "things" and social status, the info from such a study is a good reminder that being wealthy is not the route to happiness. Establishing wealth and material security as one's highest goal is rather misguided, and the inner workings and worries of the human soul seems to recognize that our true calling is not for wealth or the world, but for something else. One can never have enough money, or things, as there is always something "new and improved" or "updated." There is always more that we "need."

As a Christian, I try/struggle/desire to use the resources of this tradition, and in particular Christ and God, as the means to make sense of my true aim: to love God and the neighbor. So as much as I worry about money and financial security (and I do a lot), it is helpful to have reminders that one can never have enough wealth to truly find peace. Peace comes not from things we buy, but from our relationships, from our experiences, from those around us, from the intangibles. And the peace God reveals to us, albeit imperfectly, at least gives us a sense that one's heart gets involved in what one desires, meaning we should desire what can't be objectified, simplified, purchased or improved.

And as much as I don't like to admit it, Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh are my neighbor, even if I think that they are misguidedly striving for a life that ultimately is less fulfilling, satisfying and holy than the life that is directed towards God. I certainly am not trying to excuse or justify such behavior or lifestyles, but to suggest that God is our ground and end, making us responsible for others, allowing us to see that things aren't our true end.

Augustine was right thousands of years ago when he made a distinction between using things in the world to enjoy God or merely enjoying things in the world. Even the awareness by the Super-Rich that they felt most connected and satisfied in giving money away suggests that money isn't something that can be enjoyed, but is best used for something greater, to help others, to shape a community, to form relationships. If only those who have could find the means to look behind their insecurity to see that it isn't through money that security is found.

Maybe it is really all about "Your Money or Your Life"....

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419

New Humanism as Retro Theology?

Earlier this week, David Brooks wrote a column in the NY Times arguing that it is time to rethink our contemporary conception of human nature. (Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?src=me&ref=homepage). He thinks that we, with the "we" being the US I suppose, are overly reliant on a rational account of human nature, one that separates thinking from the emotions. I'd sum it up using Plato: Plato believed that knowing the good leads to doing the good. Our emotions need to be ignored, given over to knowledge, as truth has the power to move the rational part of our soul towards enacting truth. For Brooks, this assumption shapes our view about education, the role of the media, the power of advertisements and institutions like Consumer Reports. They give us rational facts that we rationally comprehend and use to make informed choices in the world. Well, Brooks rightly is criticizing this rational approach, saying it led to Wall Street debacle and a number of foreign policy messes.

He aims to use the research of a variety of social and hard sciences to suggest a much deeper link between thinking and the emotions that will help reform our conception of human nature. For this goal, I am thankful, as I do think that we are too overly reliant on trusting people like economists and policy gurus to rationally explain why we should follow a certain course of action. From Tea Party folk to Union Leaders, the trust in human thinking to address contemporary problems (budget deficits, collective bargaining rights) makes it seem that objectivity and certainty is possible. He also goes back to the Scottish Enlightenment as a means to find a link between reason and the emotions, and includes terms like sympathy, metis (to see patterns in the world) and limerence (a hunger for transcending time/world/things). Doesn't limerence just sound cool and fun to say, like it belongs in a poem or song?

I want to go further back though to two foundational Christian assumptions, two that many of us don't like to talk about: sin and love. A major element in Christianity, especially post-Augustine (4-5th CE), is the idea that we are trapped in a nature that fundamentally loves itself more than God and others. Self-love shapes our thinking and actions in the world, such that our thoughts are related to our aims, goals, hopes and desires. We are biased for our own idea of the good, successes, aims, advantages. So with this view, any "rational" choice is intertwined with emotion, with our desires and hopes. I do think one element of the genius of Christianity is that sin is a powerfully descriptive term about human nature, one that should make us cautious about certainty, confidence and the power of our knowledge.

So I would like to remind Mr. Brooks that there are traditions that do see the intertwining of reason and emotions. Christian loved-grounded-thinking does not mean we can't use reason to make sense of things in the world, just that we will never be objective or truly empathetic towards others in a way that will make for equality and the common good. True peace and community comes in relationship to God and from God. We need to properly see ourselves as limited, thereby opening ourselves up to working communally to address the problems we face. And it is through communal action that our self-love can be mitigated, limited and our thinking made "better." And it is through a faith tradition like Christianity that we receive a truer sense of being human, both what we are and what we should be. As we Christians begin the fast of Lent, may we use it to remind ourselves of the limits to our thinking.

Commonwealth.... Time to Reprise?

So what unites us as a nation? Obviously, there is no "one" thing, but my point in raising the question is to think about how we as people of faith think about the key values that we hold dear and believe connect us as a people. Politically, our current political debate seems to focus on the value of the free individual over any common wealth or success. Either one has successfully been an individual (and deserves the wealth and status that he/she made) or has failed, and thus deserves to be poor. I think this individualism is one of the most divisive myths within the American worldview, as it pervades so much of our debate.

And it is this individual focus that needs to be reassessed as we debate cutting education, job programs and health care. I think we should develop a more robust idea of Commonwealth, a term that has its English etymological roots in the idea of "common well-being" (wealth = well-being). What happened to "United We Stand"? Can't we unite to fight hunger, poverty and poor education?

Within our context, where religion and faith divide, rather than unite, the Christian tradition offers an ambiguous resource for political thinking. But there are several important thinkers that might help us reframe the political debate. In particular, I am thinking of Augustine. In City of God, he connects commonwealth with peoplehood: "A people is an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we have only to observe what they love. Yet whatever it loves, if only it is an assemblage of reasonable beings and not of beasts, and is bound together by an agreement as to the objects of love, it is reasonably called a people; and it will be a superior people in proportion as it is bound together by higher interests, inferior in proportion as it is bound together by lower. According to this definition of ours, the Roman people is a people, and its weal is without doubt a commonwealth or republic."(19.24)

He believes that a true commonwealth is united under the rule of Christ. As we are modern political liberals, valuing freedom of religion, this view is untenable, as giving each person religious freedom (as a formal right) is an important part of our social contract. But a lovely question to think about is: what do we love? Is our love of individual rights greater than our love of helping others? Shouldn't we as Christians be united in our love of God and love of neighbor such that our actions are focused on common well-being?

And with this line of reasoning, I think that underneath the right of the individual over the community as a whole is the more pervasive mythos is the belief that each individual can "create" something from nothing; that we don't need any help/luck in becoming a wealthy, successful individual. In short, that the teachers, family of origin, community, class and race that form the life that we are thrown into (quoting Heidegger) don't play a part in shaping who we become. To accept the premise that our common life impacts each of us as an individual makes a commonwealth much more important. We should be united in common for the well being of all.

Wealth Inequality: Where is?

My 18 month old daughter loves to ask "Where is?" She really doesn't have a handle yet connecting her questions with nouns (book, crayon). I think that like her, many Christians today largely ignore or feel powerless in relation to the nouns "Wealth Equality." Any quick perusal of the news today will include stories about budget deficits, the need for tax cuts, pension reforms, ending collective bargaining for public unions and budget cuts to education, health and social services such as Planned Parenthood and Head Start. Yes, let's not ask the wealthy to pay more so that our children can be healthy and well-educated so that our nation can continue to prosper. Yes, let's not cut or means-test entitlements, even though they currently eat up 43% of the US budget (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security in 2010). And yes, let's continue to spend 20% of the budget on "defense," a word that really should be called "offense."

But the real point of this blog post is to think about the underlying issues of wealth and income that lie underneath such budget battles. America is a fabulously wealthy country and the vast majority of us do not have to deal with issues like homelessness and hunger (even as both have been increasing over the past few years). America certainly has enough wealth to end such issues forever and it is an embarrassment that our public debate does not make ending such inequalities a priority (rather than tax cuts).

Instead, income inequality, though different than wealth inequality, seems to be the priority. For example:
--In 1976, the richest 1% of Americans took home 9% of total US income. In 2010, the richest 1%
   took home 24% of income.
--From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the  
   richest 1 percent.
These statistics are from: www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html

And how do the vast majority Christians respond? Are we protesting in the streets in places other than Madison? Are we using Jesus' words about about the impossibility of loving wealth and loving God (Matt 6:24-5) to argue that being Christian obligates us to focus on loving God through the love of neighbor rather than love of comfort, dollars and things? Are we using the account in the Acts of the Apostles in which the earliest Christians shared possessions amongst themselves and no one was in need (Acts 4:34) to suggest that being a Christian obligates us to care for the needy equally with caring for oneself? Are we willing to give up what we have for others?

Or do we read books like "Jesus, CEO" and "Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Today's Leaders" that equate material success with spiritual development, supporting Max Weber's claim in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that we relieve our anxiety about being right with God by "seeing" such rightness in worldly success? Do we support the wealthy in their search for more wealth because they are favored by God?

Where is the outrage? Where are the Christians? Where is?