Breakpoint

Since SCOTUS overturned Roe, sales of the morning-after pill have exploded. Amazon had to restrict purchase numbers as did the pharmacies CVS and Rite Aid. One company saw a 600% increase in purchases within 24 hours of the Dobbs decision, with 72% of those for multiple units.  Morning-after pills, colloquially called by the brand name Plan B, don’t need a prescription. They range from $10 to $50 a pop. Women take it within three days of unprotected sex to deter ovulation and, if not that, to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, which as many Christians have pointed out is abortion. It’s not the same as what’s called “medication abortion”—two different pills used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy.  In a recent commercial for a new show, a woman hands a friend a bag with the morning-after pill, so the friend can sleep with a guy spontaneously. In other words, the phrase “emergency contraceptive” is most often a misnomer. Most of the talk of reproductive justice is really about sex without restraint. 

In most of the world today, slavery is unthinkable. Is it possible that we could ever reach that same place with abortion in America?  Just as there were once states where it was legal to own slaves and other states where it wasn’t, we are now a nation deeply divided on the issue of abortion on a state-by-state level. In certain states, abortion is allowed, encouraged, and even subsidized abortion. In others, abortion is all but illegal. The history of the Church’s stance on both issues, abolition and abortion, is instructive as we seek to obey Christ in a post-Roe world.  Clearly, the early Church did not like slavery. The New Testament condemns behaviors that were endemic to the slave trade. In his letter to Philemon, Paul gave broad hints that masters should free their Christian slaves. Early Christians often purchased slaves specifically to set them free.   Even so, neither the New Testament nor the early Church pushed for full abolition of slavery, for at least two reasons.  First, taking a public stand would have brought even more unwanted attention to an already targeted group. Second, the ancient world offered no model to Christians for a society without slaves, so few could envision what that would look like. Though Christians saw slavery as a curse, they could not conceive of being rid of it entirely (any more than they could imagine a world rid of disease or poverty). This failure of moral imagination meant that it would be centuries before the implications of the Gospel would lead Christian rulers to take definitive steps toward abolishing slavery.  By the Middle Ages, overt slavery was rare in Europe, and Church leaders spoke out against it. Thomas Aquinas claimed that slavery might be part of the “law of nations” but was against the law of nature and therefore a sin. When, centuries later, the infamous Atlantic slave trade began, Portugal and Spain defied the decrees of four different popes to spread it in their colonies. In the English-speaking world, the rampant practice of slavery found opposition among Quakers and a rising evangelicalism that eventually ended first the slave trade, then slavery altogether.  All this means that the American theologians who defended slavery were following the culture’s lead, not Church teaching. Though it took far too long for the implications of the Gospel to become clear, the teaching of both Jesus and Paul of the spiritual and moral equality of all persons meant that slavery was incompatible with Christianity, and its abolition in Christian states was only a matter of time. Eventually, because of the commitment to the worth and dignity of every human being as created in the image of God, Christians fought to end the abuse of slavery.  In contrast, the Christian position on abortion has been clear from day one. In the Didache, the earliest non-New Testament Christian work to survive, Christians are instructed “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.” Similarly, the late first or early second century Epistle of Barnabas, a manual of ethics in this early period, says “you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor again kill it when it is born.” In “A Plea for Christians,” written in 177, Athenagoras of Athens wrote, “[w]e say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder …”  Similar teaching can be found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the pseudonymous Apocalypse of Peter, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Lactantius, which takes us up to the de-criminalization of Christianity by Constantine. The teaching of the Church on abortion has been clear from the start and continued to be clear well into the 20th century.   Only recently have some claiming the name of Christ accepted abortion as morally licit, or worse, have celebrated it. Christian opposition to abortion is based on precisely the same reasoning as Christian opposition to slavery. Every human being is made in the image of God and is crowned with glory and honor, a dignity we dare not ignore. The same dehumanizing and depersonalizing claim that undergirded the idea that slaves were less worthy as human beings, and further undergirded the horrific treatment of African Americans in the Jim Crow South, is also at work in pro-abortion thinking. And yet, the same liberating power of the imago dei that broke the chains of slavery demands that we see the dignity of preborn children and work to protect them.   Slavery and the subsequent dehumanizing treatment of African Americans was evil, and that the crusade to end both was (and is) God’s work. May we also recognize that dehumanizing and killing the unborn is at least as evil, and rightly abhorred.   

Yesterday in 1924, Eric Liddell (1902-1945) won an Olympic gold medal in the 400-meter race. As a devout Christian, Liddell decided to never race on Sundays. Imagine his dismay when he realized that his best race—100 meters—was scheduled for a Sunday.  Liddell withdrew, to the derision of many Britons, who thought he was being disloyal to his nation. He quickly pivoted for the 200-meter and 400-meter races, taking third in the 200-meter and claiming the gold in the 400-meter.  Liddell was the son of Scottish missionaries to China, and his story was memorialized in the film Chariots of Fire, which won the Oscar in 1981 for Best Picture. Despite athletic success, Liddell returned to China the following year. During World War II, the Japanese took over his mission station and placed him in an internment camp, where he faithfully served Christ and others before dying of a brain tumor in 1945.   Liddell’s Olympic-time decision was consistent with the life he lived in faithful service to Christ who “made [him] for China,” but also “made [him] fast.” He ran every race, including the race of life, to “feel God’s pleasure.”  . 

One of the most enigmatic, sensational, and misguided thinkers of the last 10 years is Israeli historian and pop philosopher Yuval Noah Harari. His book Sapiens, published in English in 2015, sold over a million copies as it told the story of mankind’s evolution. His 2017 book Homo Deus predicts a transhumanist future, a world where technology fundamentally reshapes what kind of entity human beings are.   “We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals,” he told attendees at the 2020 World Economic Forum annual meeting. “By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to reengineer the power of life itself,” he said two years earlier. “This will be not just the greatest revolution in the history of humanity. This will be the greatest revolution in biology since the very beginning of life 4 billion years ago.”   Harari’s prophecy doesn’t end there:  “Science is replacing evolution by natural selection by evolution via intelligent design,” he continued in 2018. “Not the intelligent design of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design, and the intelligent design of our clouds: the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud … these are the new, driving forces of evolution.”   Conspiracy theorists might be forgiven for having a field day with such statements. After all, Harari’s outspoken fans include some of the most powerful people alive: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, former President Barack Obama, as well as executive chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab. Despite a somewhat critical response from academics, the success of his books is undeniable.   Still, Harari suffers from a fatal inconsistency. While positioning himself as a prophet, interested in solving the worst abuses that could befall our future hackable selves, he cuts the ideological ground out from anything standing in their way. A keen example is his critique of both liberal democracy and the entire concept of the “individual” as outdated political norms.   “Liberalism,” he wrote in the Guardian “is unprepared for a situation when individual freedom is subverted from within, and when the very concepts of ‘individual’ and ‘freedom’ no longer make much sense.” Yet in nearly the same breath, Harari rushes us towards that exact conclusion: “In order to survive and prosper in the 21st century,” he writes, “we need to leave behind the naive view of humans as free individuals—a view inherited from Christian theology as much as from the modern Enlightenment.”  Though he is right about the origins of classic liberalism, the result is a self-contradictory mess. In effect, Harari is saying we should stop people from being hacked by hacking ourselves first …  and defend universal values by denying that they exist. “I don’t know where the answers will come from,” Harari admits, “but they are definitely not coming from a collection of stories written thousands of years ago.”   If those stories are just stories, Harari is correct. But as C.S. Lewis described, some stories ground us in reality. This is, in fact, what Christianity does, and what reductionist materialism makes impossible.   Though new insight on technology may have helped Harari sell interesting books, dreaming of a world stripped of all values is as old as modernism itself. Had someone given him a copy of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, he may have seen his exact premise tackled by an Oxford don nearly 80 years ago.   All of this matters because ideas have consequences. Harari and those like him may be attempting to shape the trajectory of transhumanism towards a utopian future but, as often the case, public intellectuals with good intentions but bad worldviews are often the blindest to the practical implications of their thinking.   “How does liberal democracy function in an era when governments and corporations can hack humans?” Harari asked in the Guardian article.  A better question is: How does liberal democracy function in an era when people rush to assume they are merely pre-determined “hackable animals” instead of moral agents who are responsible for their decisions, living in a society of people created equal and “endowed by their creator with inalienable rights?”   History tells us the answer to that question. It can’t. The entire concept of human rights is intimately connected with a Christian anthropology. Gut a society of that worldview, and there’s no limit to how far we can fall.   If Harari’s predictions somehow do become reality, it will have less to do with technology, and far more to do with ideas: specifically, the nihilistic, reductionist humanity he so ardently promotes. Technology makes imagined futures possible, but ideas shape how and why we use technology. If he’s looking for a worldview that’s better for empowering techno-tyrants, corporatists, and demagogues, he could do little better than the one he’s promoting.   On the other hand, if he’s looking to evade the oppression he fears, he should look to One of the old stories he derides. 

I’m going to say it—a book is better than a phone.    Stop me if you’ve heard this: A guy is walking his dog right beside a very busy road and he almost dies because he’s staring straight into, wait for it . . . a book!    You were expecting it to be his phone, right?    If you’re going to risk your life, at least do it for the printed word. We might tell ourselves there’s no difference between reading on paper and reading on a screen. But as Dr. Martin Tobin writes, “Our eyes lie to us.”  “Cognitive scientists have discovered that reading is not only a visual activity, but also a bodily activity,” Tobin writes. “A book is a physical object . . . you see and feel the texture of its pages. Leafing back and forth provides a mental map of the entire text, aiding comprehension …and recall.”    And, of course, when we read a book, we’re not tempted to check email, voicemail, Facebook, texts, and on and on.    So put down the phone. Grab a real book. But avoid traffic when you do so.   

A recent photo essay in The Atlantic documented dozens of pro-abortion demonstrations around the country following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling. Protesters, often dressed like handmaids from Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, seem to believe the Court has taken something away from them. Even the article’s description blames the justices for “removing a federal right to an abortion.”  In reality, the majority’s decision in the Dobbs case did not change a single abortion law. What they did was end the Supreme Court’s 49-year-old intervention that took the abortion question out of the hands of elected lawmakers, and therefore out of the hands of the American people. Now, thanks to this ruling, voters can, for the first time in a generation, decide the issue democratically by going to the ballot box and making their voices heard.  Of course, any law that allows for the killing of unborn children is unjust and morally unacceptable, even if it is the will of voters. So, the ultimate goal for Christians should be that abortion is not only illegal in all 50 states, but unthinkable in the modern world, swept into the dustbin of history like other historic evils. Obviously, given the reaction to the Dobbs decision, this will involve changing a lot of hearts and minds.   Still, the ruling in Dobbs is an incredible victory and important step in restoring the rule of law in this country and putting the question of abortion before the people. Roe was a legal disaster that was used for decades to swat down any state-level regulations on abortion and silence voters who wanted those regulations in place. As Ryan Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis write in their new book, Tearing Us Apart,   [Roe] removed nearly every question about abortion policy from the hands of the American people and placed the issue into the hands of unelected judges, even though the Constitution contains nothing that could remotely support a right to abortion.  Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, someone who was far from pro-life, described the judiciary’s attitude on this issue as “the abortion distortion.” According to Justice O’Connor, “no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion.” In other words, she saw that her fellow left-leaning justices were willing to use specious arguments to prop up abortion rights, even when they meant ignoring established norms and precedent. In fact, even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong supporter of the so-called “right to choose,” admitted that, in legal terms, Roe was a “heavy-handed judicial intervention.”   Not only does Dobbs represent a moment when the Supreme Court is giving up power and returning it to the states, but it may place America much more in line with the rest of the developed world on the abortion issue. Believe it or not, American law on abortion, thanks in a big part to Roe, has been more in line with the laws of repressive, totalitarian regimes than other liberal democracies.   As Anderson and DeSanctis note, only seven countries, including North Korea   permit elective abortion after twenty weeks of pregnancy. U.S. abortion policy is far more permissive even than the policies in most European countries. Thirty-nine of the forty-two European countries that allow elective abortion permit it only in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.   To put that in perspective, we are told that the Mississippi law at the heart of the Dobbs case is comparable to Margaret Atwood’s fictional sexist dystopia. But the reality is that in prohibiting elective abortion after 15 weeks, the law made Mississippi comparable to such sexist dystopias as…well, France.   Considering these facts, it’s difficult to understand the extreme reaction many in the pro-abortion camp have had to this ruling. The justices didn’t change a single law. What they did was return the issue to the states, and thus, the voters. The process now unfolding in all 50 states is one the Supreme Court short-circuited almost 50 years ago by making the decision for us and inventing a constitutional right to an abortion.   As Anderson and DeSanctis note, this “heavy-handed” intervention corrupted our political process, undermined the will of voters, and fostered a mentality among progressives that whatever they couldn’t win support for in legislatures, they could demand from the Supreme Court. In Dobbs, six of the justices appear to be signaling that things will no longer work this way.   Of course, progressive states will entrench abortion in law, meaning lives will continue to be snuffed out in this country by white-clad professionals practicing what they call “healthcare.” Until that changes, our work for justice must continue. But thanks to this ruling, laws designed to save young lives will no longer be snuffed out by black-robed lawyers practicing what they call “Constitutional law.” 

Maria and John hold a lively conversation about human dignity in the Declaration of Independence, the correlation of marijuana use to teen mental health, and the surge in purchases of the Plan B morning-after pill.

Recently, Ezra Klein wrote a column attempting to answer a question he says he is asked all the time: Should today’s adults have kids, given the climate crisis?   Klein received a good bit of pushback for the odd premise of the question, which seems to reveal more about the company he keeps than actual sentiment. After all, according to Pew Research, only a tiny fraction of childless adults cite climate worries as their motivation.  But the most poignant part of Klein’s piece is what it assumes.  Think about it: No one is wondering whether adults should abstain from sex in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet. Just whether they should use birth control and have abortions in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet.  Childbearing is seen as a technologically controlled choice, completely independent of the act that causes it. This is how much technologies can change how we think about the world and why Christians must always approach new biotechnologies by first asking what humans are for.  And, as for his original question—yes, we should still have children.  

According to the writer of Proverbs, “death and life are in the power of the tongue.” So is cultural change, which most often comes with efforts to change language use and the definitions of words. For example, Harvard Medical molecular biologist David Sinclair is combining innovation in the lab with innovation in language. In a recent CNN article, one of Sinclair’s financial backers described the goal of his research as changing the definition of the word “aging.” He wants to “make aging a disease.”  Sinclair claims to have successfully interrupted the aging process in mice by turning adult cells back into stem cells. Some animals are designed with a similar capability, albeit in a more limited way—think, for example, of an octopus re-growing a leg that has been cut off. Using that same idea, what Sinclair calls an “ancient regeneration system,” he hopes to regenerate cells that deteriorate with age. Already, he has been able to repair ocular cells in older mice, allowing them to recover their “youthful” eyesight.   His ultimate aim, of course, is to develop anti-aging therapies for humans. Though some concern has been directed toward the safety of Sinclair’s process, what goes largely unquestioned in media coverage is Sinclair’s chief aim. In other words, as so much medical ethics goes these days, if we can do it, then we should.  Medical ethics from a Christian worldview perspective is not that simple.   Whenever Christians can affirm aspects of work like David Sinclair’s, which attempts to overcome the consequences of the fall, we should. The Bible teaches that death is an enemy, and that humans were not made to die. And humans should recognize that the ingenuity and passion for exploration that often inspires medical progress are God-given.   To accuse people like Sinclair of “playing God,” as if that were an insult, is not helpful. After all, according to Genesis 1 and 2, human beings were created by God to, in a sense, “play God.” We are not to pretend that we are God, of course, but He did gift us with the ability to work alongside Him to accomplish His purposes for the world He made. After the fall, He promises to eventually restore His creation, so our work alongside Him continues. The mandate to build and create, tending the garden of His world, is to be done within the moral limits that reflect His character and how He created the world.   Within this framework, causing or hastening death is a great evil, but so can be attempts to avoid death “at all costs.” Jesus’ own death was an act of unprecedented evil but also only fully understood in the context of His obedience to the Father’s will. Jesus lay down His life, and many Christians have followed in His footsteps. Thus, there are certain moral goods—such as the will of God—that are higher than avoiding death.  Keeping these sorts of things straight is essential to ethically pursuing and employing technologies, like those that promise to “reverse aging.” In his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, bioethicist and theologian Gilbert Meilaender counsels Christians to view the freedom to pursue medical progress not as freedom from restraints, such as death. Instead, we should consider ourselves free to work alongside God imitating Him on the path He set out for human flourishing. This will mean, very often in fact, not doing (as God described the men who built the tower of Babel) “whatever comes into our minds to do.”  Meilaender counsels Christians to fight the temptation to use medicine, not merely as a way to care for our bodies, but from the desire to control them. If the chief end of medical research and practice is to live on our own terms, we will inevitably make moral compromises along the way. It was the serpent who promised Eve that she could live as she wished but evade death, which was not only a lie, but not sufficient justification for attempting to usurp the authority that only belongs to God.   The goal of medical research and practice should be to help people flourish in the bodies, times, places, and limits that God has given us. From this beginning, Meilaender suggests that the “principle” which should “govern Christian compassion” is not to “minimize suffering,” but to “maximize care.”    Our purpose is not to avoid suffering or even death at all costs despite that they are effects of the fall we are called to oppose. Rather, we take into account that in God’s mercy, even our suffering can be redeemed for good. We lament the hard realities of our fallen world, and we seek to understand them within the larger context of creation and resurrection. Thus, we know that death is not the end of life, nor is life only a prerequisite to death. 

Last month, a New York court ruled that Happy the elephant should not legally be considered a person. An organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project had sued the Bronx Zoo for “imprisoning” Happy, arguing it should be set free since it showed signs of “self-awareness.”  “While no one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants. ...” Janet DiFiore, the chief judge, wrote, “[h]abeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not nonhuman animals.”    Confusion is inevitable whenever a culture untethers itself from all sources of truth. If there’s no God, then people aren’t in His image. So why shouldn’t animals have the same rights we do? And if our rights aren’t based in our design, the only option is to base them on some slippery criteria like “self-awareness” or intelligence. But, of course, that way of thinking also makes it possible to not extend human rights to certain humans.    According to Judge DiFiore, granting Happy “personhood status” would be legally “destabilizing.” In fact, the worldview that animated this legal comedy to begin with is destabilizing. When it comes to human rights, only Christianity offers solid ground.