Reflecting on the sovereignty of God in the wake of the cyclone in Myanmar and quake in China

I have been following the news about the quake in China (May 12, 2008). In fact, I was there in Dujiangyan, one of the quake zones, eight years ago with my friends. I could feel the pain, anguish and torment that the victims are going through, and it was really heart-wrenching. I was totally touched when I saw Premier Wen Jiabao said (in Mandarin) "Don't cry, we stand together" on CCTV4 website. One of my closer friends from China shared that she has been having nightmares about the earthquake, and has been asking why these innocent people are going through so much, esp. the school children trapped in collapsed buildings. She also remarked that most of the government buildings are still standing, and many believe that the contractors who built the school buildings compromised on their quality.

This scene and the other that took place in Myanmar (May 01, 2008) led me to question why did God allow the innocent victims to die. At least 100,000 in Myanmar, and at least 50,000 in Si Chuan. As I kept on pondering, I have to ask why did God give Adam and Eve the free will to choose from the tree of knowledge in the first place. The choice of Adam and Eve implicates the subsequent humankind in their act of sin. Did the cyclone and quake happen as a result of Adam and Eve choice to disobey God? I am inclined to think so. (Rom 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned")

The rest of the humankind are implicated in the sins of just a few persons? Yes. The sloppy work of contractors have resulted in the collapse of some buildings. The misuse of land have resulted in floods of great multitude. The emission of CO2 in a few developed countries have resulted in the global warming. But at the same time, the rescue efforts of thousands of rescue teams could control the damage. The efforts of the UN, Red Cross and other humanitarian groups saved the lives of the remaining survivors. Whatever rescue effort that can be done, it could only control or minimize the damage done.

In other words, the negative effects of one single act affects a much more multitude of humanity, and it takes much more than one positive act to counteract the damage. I think that is the situation we are in. But are we alone? No. By sacrificing His Son on the cross for all of us, and by His resurrection, God is showing us that this battle can be won. Jesus Christ's incarnation and resurrection shows that God is standing in solidarity with our suffering. By our free will, the whole of humanity is complicit in the act of sins. But by Jesus' death, all of us are given the chance to turn the tide against the dark force (which is within each and everyone of us). By the death of God's only Son, we have the assurance to continue to hope, and to hold out light in the darkness. For the love of God, we continue to exercise our free will to bring others into the same hope. God cries with us, suffers with us, and marches to victory with all of us.

The question for me now is not so much "why did this happen," but rather, "what can I do now to share my hope with others?" I could think of a few: pray for the afflicted victims, for those still trapped in the rubbles; pray for better infrastructure to be built; comfort those whom we know are affected; contribute financially through World Vision or other organizations; as a church we could hold prayer service for China and Myanmar, and donate imperishable food and clothing to related organization.

Why did God allow this to happen? I don't have the answer. I can only faintly try to glimpse an insight in the fall of Adam and Eve, and being more confident that whatever tragedies we are witnessing now will come to an end. In the meanwhile, each and everyone of us must respond as an ambassador of Christ (that's why we are called Christians).

If one thinks that God allowed these disaster to happen so that the rest of us could ponder about our meaning of life, then I would echo Karl Marx's protest:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Any message which encourages Christians to find comfort in Jesus Christ without engaging the disaster and the traumas of the victims is a form of opium! Any types of message which numbs me to the plight of the afflicted ones is offering a false reality divorced from the tragedy. The struggling and sufferings of the victims are real and intense. The tragedy that strikes China (and the same for Myanmar) calls for all Christians to stand in solidarity with their plight. It calls for Christians to take the initiative to identify with what victims are going through. I pray that their pain would be our pain. May their memory and traumas be part of the memory and traumas of the whole human race, of which we are a part of.

God's sovereignty is not manifested directly in the disaster, it is manifested through the activeness (not passiveness) of Christians' responses to the disaster. We MUST respond. (For my case, I have been praying regularly for them and following the news on this tragedy, crying together with the victims, donating money directly to the victims. I am currently initiating a prayer meeting, with Tim Leary- staff worker from Inter-Varsity, for the Chinese students whom we know.)


What is your own response as a Christian?

May 22, 2008

What is my mission?

As I am now having my summer break, I could afford the time and space to re-think about my mission in life. I shall pen down what comes to my mind during my moment of reflection.

I believe the American and British missionaries who were sent to Asia in the last two centuries also imported their views of what it meant to be a church or Christians. We have inherited what they had passed down to us in Asia. I shall identify the three/four phases of church development (I avoid the word "church growth" in case some identify it as numerical growth), and how I understand my mission to be related to these developments. You will understand why I am not sure whether it is three or four phases of church development.

1st PHASE
During the 1st phase of church planting, I believe the emphasis is on evangelism, discipleship training, spiritual growth. This will probably take 2-3 generations for the church to develop a tradition deeply ingrained in these essential disciplines. I could identify Paul's and Peter's epistles to be written for these purposes. The basic elements of Christian faith would be elucidated and indoctrinated by then. Most missionaries sent to Asia imparted the model of church as understood in the 1st phase.

2nd PHASE
In the 2nd phase of church development, I am suggesting that there has to be engagement of Christianity with the culture and philosophy. I find traces of such attempt in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. There were attempts to explain Christian faith to the prevalent culture, as well as new origin way of interpreting the Christian faith as illustrated by Origen. One could almost see how the early apologists would identify Christianity as the true religion, and the true worship of God.

3rd PHASE
By the 3rd phase, there would be synthesizing of Christian thought with philosophy, proliferation of Christian literature, and initiation of new theological movement or representative of a school of thought, as evinced by Augustine of Hippo. Christian theology by then would be able to dialogue with other academic disciplines on the same platform. This was the approach of Cappadocian Fathers when they developed a mature form of the concept of Trinity. I would say that in this phase, theology would be the handmaiden of science and reason, and there are full engagement of theology and other academic disciplines. In this regard, the contemporary theologians, T.F. Torrance (who just passed away this year) and John Polkinghorne are exemplars of leading the engagement of Christian theology with contemporary science. There are many theologians in the US and Europe who could be identified in this phase, such as Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Alvin Plantinga, Hans Küng, Gustavo Gutiérrez, etc. You could identify the different models or system of thoughts that are developed specifically for dialogue and engagement. Those at the high end of 3rd phase spawn a totally new school of thought such that they represent a movement itself.

How about theologians like J.I.Packer, John Stott, and Alister McGrath? I am not sure whether they represent a league in the 3rd phase. I would rather say that they are more in the high end of the 2nd phase and lower end of 3rd phase. They have exposited cogent evangelical theology, and made it relevant to us by engaging in many critical issues. They have contributed so much to the evangelical cause that the evangelicals could proudly identify what it meant to be an evangelical because of them. But I would hesitate to say that they have generated a new system of thoughts that clearly distinguished itself as an innovation or remarkably different from the previous generations. They did distinguish themselves as radically different from the fundamentalists though.

I also identify Alister McGrath as making the transition into the middle range of the 3rd phase. He had been re-packaging theology to make it comprehensible to the current generation in the past two decades, and he is also making a clear attempt to engage the scientific enterprise. However, his most recent A Scientific Theology (2001-3) may represent a distinctive approach to science and theology. I think he is currently the most promising evangelical theologian who will leave a significant landmark in our time.

4th PHASE
This phase could be identified in the development of the Western culture, so I am not sure whether it should be considered as the 4th phase of church development. The Christian faith is identical to the prevalent culture. This process was initiated by the Roman Emperor Constantine (A.D. 280-337) after he reunited the East and West Roman Empire. He tolerated Christianity officially. But it was Theodosius I (A.D.347- 379) who officiated the synthesizing of Christianity into the culture. In the medieval era, to be an European is to be a Christian. Religion and state started to be separated after the Thirty Years' war (1618-1648) in Europe, and in the face of increasing secularization. I think Max Weber's Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism and Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy captured this secularization process well. Karl Barth reacted violently to identifying Christian faith with the culture (i.e. the 4th phase).

I believe the most mature form of Christian development is to be identified with the 3rd phase. I am not sure whether to identify the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 3rd or 4th phase. Perhaps my categories are too simplistic to place them neatly into my system.


The first church was set up in S'pore in the 19th century (the first Presbyterian church started in 1856). It has been almost 150 years. A number of English churches are in the 2nd phase, and most Chinese churches are still in the 1st phase (I am not sure whether it is because the Chinese church started half a century later than the English church) . Most of the theological studies in Boston University School of Theology assumed a theological setting in the 3rd phase. For e.g. "Theologies of Dialogue" by Prof John Berthrong takes up the challenge of engaging Christianity in dialogue with other world religions. "Christian Social Ethics" by Prof John Hart examines how we could possibly respond to complicating social issues from Christian perspectives.

I am trying to break into the 2nd phase, and I could identify some Christians or theologians in Asia who are now in the 2nd phase, like Rev Stephen Tong （唐崇荣牧师) and Rev Kang Lai Chang (康来昌牧师）. Eventually, I hope to be equipped as a theologian-pastor, to train the laity, and hopefully theological students to take up challenges in the 2nd phase, and to transit into the 3rd phase. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I want to be like Rev Stephen Tong or Rev Kang. I am saying that I recognize my mission to be educating the current and the next generations to take up the challenges in the 2nd phase and to transit into 3rd phase. But is that who God is calling me to be? I am not absolutely sure, and I am still praying about it.

I may not live long enough to witness the Christians in Asia moving on to the 3rd phase, but I am keen to explore how Christians could engage the Chinese culture, such as Confucian ethics, worship and rite, Buddhism, Taoism, Falungong, and if possible, how could one be an authentic Christian in a Communist country, etc. If you have similar insights, please do feel free to write in to me.

How about you? What's your mission in life?

May22, 2008

My updates for Spring 2008

This semester (Spr'08) has not been easy for me, as there were much more writing of academic papers. Other than knowing how to write better papers, there are few important decisions I made, and some important lessons that I learned in this semester.


1) I have switched from my Master of Theological Studies (MTS) program to Master of Divinity (MDiv) program.This means that I will be seeking ordination track under Presbyterian Church (USA). On top of the original MTS curriculum, I will be taking classes in Greek and Hebrew languages, Pastoral Care & Counseling, Worship, Preaching, Social Science perspective on church, and Field Education. Which means, it will be two more years before I graduate. There are many reasons why I decided to switch program.

One of them is because of an urgent need for the laity to be exposed to essential theological issue. Theology must speak to the laity as well as to the theological students. I hope that I could train the laity in theology one day. I also realize that theology has a life of its own. In undertaking this subject, I enter into dialogues rooted in history, philosophy, and the Bible. Theological studies have challenged me time and again to conform to new insights, or have given me new sets of lenses to look at humanity, and the world at large.

The other reason is more pragmatic. I am currently supporting myself financially in this theological education. However, there are more financial supports from my school for MDiv students. And if I could be confirmed as an ordination candidate by the local Presbyterian church (which is next March), they will also provide some subsidies for my tuition fee.


2) Ever since Feb'08, my wife has been working as temp staff in a financial company, and later in my university. The working culture here is different from what she was exposed to back in S'pore, and it is a different form of cultural exposure for her. We thank God for this experience, and for supplying our material needs.


3) From my study on Augustine's Confessions, I understand how he reconciled Neo-Platonic thoughts in his Christian framework. For Augustine, the Absolute Good is also the personal God (watch out for this same identification in C.S. Lewis' writings). There was a shift in the mediaveal period, especially the re-discovery of Aristotle, as represented in Thomas Aquinas. The Enlightenment climax with Immanuel Kant, who shattered the congenial marriage of theology and philosophy. Schleiermacher, the father of modern theology, responded by shifting the emphasis to "religious experience."

I thank God for the wonderful experience of being able to trace the development of theology from philosophical perspective. This solved my question: "What exactly happened to theology from Augustine to the eve of Reformation, and immediately after Reformation to now?" I had been deeply troubled by this qus as the theologians I was exposed to in S'pore were only Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley.

This background also helps me to appreciate my Sociology of Religion class better.


4) I have also learned more about my own identity here. I am very appreciative of Singapore's education system as it prepared me well to use English as the medium for communication. I have been editing papers for a number of Koreans and a Japanese. Though I am not perfect in my English, I think I am able to express myself adequately to be understood well in writing, in discussion, and in normal conversation. This is a cause of envy among the other international students from Asia, but I salute them for their perseverance.

I also have the opportunity to work together in a team with Koreans and Japanese. I realized that S'pore working culture is closer to Japan's than to Korea's.

I had always assumed that my 1st language should be my native language (which is the assumption of most Americans). I was mistaken. To be more precise, my 1st language is English, but my native language is Mandarin. As I have been educated in English, English is my 1st language; but my mother tongue, Mandarin is the language I have been using since birth. I am not a Chinese, but a Singaporean Chinese. The way I think and speak are rooted in the culture that I grew up in, and it is different from the native Chinese (either from China or Taiwan). Now, the word "Singaporean" holds much more meaning for me.


5) As I got to know more Africans (particularly from Congo, Zimbabwe, Niagara) in my school, I discovered that the modern history of Africans (the same as for many other countries) was shaped by the Western powers. The boundaries of many African countries have been drawn on the table of Western countries after the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Many tragedies or ethic conflicts in Africa today are the result of misplacement of tribes by the Western nations. There are so many sad stories about how their current politics are being manipulated by foreign powers. The Africans need more prayer support. At the same time, I believe the Africans are the most effective agents to talk about reconciliation and peace in the world, as they have to go through much turmoil in order to achieve peace and stability.


6) Lastly, I have been actively involved in Bible study for graduate international students, under the Graduate Christian Fellowship (GCF is part of Inter-Varsity ministry). Most of the participants are from China or Taiwan. My bilingual ability has been an asset to the group as I could translate some of the unfamiliar terms to Chinese.

I will continue to play an active role in this Bible study with a very dedicated full-time staff worker (by the name of Tim Leary) from Inter-Varsity. I thank God for giving me the opportunity to serve together with him. I pray that eventually, some of our friends will accept Christ, even though they may face intense pressure back home. I pray for God to guide us to understand what it means to be a Christian in a Communist country or Chinese culture, and to have the courage to live out our callings.


May21, 2008

Below is a picture of 1Cor 13:13, taken at my school.

Experience of a “miracle” in my final papers

I experienced a "miracle" in my Spr'08 semester, and I have decided to pen it down just in case I forget about it in future.

I had to submit a Sociology of Religion final paper, and Theology final paper two weeks ago. The original submission date for sociology paper was three days before theology paper. But our professor rescheduled the date such that it was three days after theology paper.

As I was writing on Schleiermacher, who responded to Immanuel Kant, for my theology paper, I had to read in-depth about his "feeling or intuition of the infinite." It was after writing on Schleiermacher that I could appreciate Peter Berger in my sociology paper. Berger suggests that the nature of religion is a "human projection, grounded in specific infrastructures of human history,"[1] and therefore sociology is a study of this projected reality.

At first, I had no idea of where Berger was coming from. It was so hard to swallow his proposed definition. But after writing my theology paper, I re-read Berger's idea, and bingo! I could see the light of his interpretation. I realized that Berger's idea is post-Kantian, and a dim reflection of Schleiermacher's response.

Berger is right! As the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, God is a necessary postulate for morality for Kant. But Schleiermacher rejects this postulate of God for morality. Instead, he claims that all of us have this experience of the infinite. This momentary intuition or feeling (German: Gefühl) , not to be confused with sensation, is the basis on which we can speak of the essence of religion. Based on this experience, we construct a religion that correlates with how we perceive and interpret this infinite. As such, religion is indeed a human construct. Now, I know where Berger is coming from.

If my sociology prof did not reschedule our submission date, I think I will never get to appreciate Peter Berger when writing my sociology paper. I thank God for this "miracle."

May20,2008

[1] Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of a Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1990/1967), 180.

Three kinds of death and implications

The following paragraph is a reflection on what went through my mind recently, on the different kinds of death and implications after being exposed to sociology of religion, Augustine's Confessions and Immanuel Kant.

There are three kinds of death that I am aware of so far.
1) Physical death- the heart stops beating and the brain stops functioning and is certified by medical practitioner. This death is usually honored by a social ritual known as funeral to signify the transition of the immediate family members and friends.

2) Spiritual death- known only to the Christians. It is also understood as a separation from God. Some believed that this death is permanent if it is not rectified in this life (I am stating an observation).

3) Social death (this is my theory)- the fading memory of a human being from the society or social circle. This can happen in one's lifetime and can take place frequently. When one ceases to be part of the former social circle, the memory of the person slowly fades away unless he/she returns to renew the ties and memories. This is why one should meet up or keep in touch regularly with the former social circle if one wants to preserve his memory in that circle regularly.

3.1 There are cases when one could be physically dead, but because of his contributions to the society, like Confucius, his memory is kept alive. So, in a sense, he is still alive, but in our memory.

3.2 There are cases when one could be physically alive, but his presence is consciously being erased away from the memory of the society or social circle, such as a social outcast or exiled prisoners. That's why it is very painful to live as an outcast, because one is treated as non-existent.

3.3 There are cases in history the transcendent God is dead- when the memory of the transcendent God is consciously/unconsciously being eroded away in the society. That's why Nietzsche who noticed that unconscious erosion could exclaim that "God is dead!" The moment one stopped worshiping the deity, the memory of that deity will slowly fade away. That's why in the 1st commandment of the Protestants' Ten Commandment (which is slightly different from the Jewish Ten Commandment), God said:"Thou shall have not other god." We are commanded to erase the presence of other possible deities from our memory. In the era of the Enlightenment, the commandment issued from the realm of science and culture took the form of "Thou shall have no transcendent God."

So, am I dead? Not physically, not spiritually, but I can feel my memory slowly fading away from my former social circles (which is normal as one transits to another social circle). But there's one thing which I must keep alive: the memory of the transcendental God. And this means staying in a social group that honors His existence and continues to re-live and enact His presence in our daily lives. That's why one needs a fellowship and a congregation to sustain and to broaden the scope of one's identity in this world (this implies that one must be part of a congregation and be in regular fellowship).

That's all. I will reflect more from sociological perspective after all my papers and German translation exam.
Apr23, 2008

The book of Amos is speaking to me

Among the books in the Bible, I think the books of the prophets are largely foreign to me. In my School of Theology, I took a class in the Hebrew Bible. The impact upon us by Dr. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr from the book of Amos is profound. I will write briefly about what I have learnt from the book and how it is applicable to my life.

The year was about 750 B.C.E. The Northern Israelite kingdom with the capital in Samaria was at her height of economic prosperity and political stability. The superpower nation Assyria had destroyed Northern Kingdom's most threatening enemy, Syria. King Jeroboam II extended his frontiers and built up a lucrative trade which created a powerful merchant class in Samaria. However, the wealth was not evenly distributed among the people. The peasant class who formed the backbone of the Northern Kingdom's economy was neglected completely. Corruption was becoming rampant and justice was not upheld in the society. The irony is that the people of the Northern Kingdom were deeply religious. They gave more than the required offerings, observed the required festivals and looked forward to the coming of the LORD. But how could this be?

Amos, a fig farmer ten miles from Jerusalem, was called by God to the Northern Kingdom. In those days, there were two kinds of prophets: the central prophet, who exercised influence from the centre of the society and religious system; the peripheral prophet, who exercised influence from the fringe of the system. Amos is a peripheral prophet, called to challenge the structural injustice prevalent in the Northern Kingdom. Amos' oracle starts with a great Lion's roar which heralds the judgment to follow. God severely condemned those in positions of power and influence and yet were ill-treating the poor and defenseless:

… because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way; father and son go in to the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned; (2:6b-7, NASB)
For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate. (5:12)

Our God is not just concerned with our relationship with Him, He is also concerned about how we govern the world He created and how we relate to people who are made in His image. Our relationship with God is not just about us. It is also about how we are relating with others, who are also His creation, which truly reflects God as our LORD, shepherd, best friend and savior.
The Israelites then had their elaborate sacrificial system and stipulated festivals, yet their religious life was wholly unacceptable to God:

I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (5:21-25, NASB)

The Israelites believed God was blessing them through economic prosperity and political stability and will bless them further by their offerings and worship. But their hearts were far from seeking and accomplishing the will of God. They failed to live out their relationship with Him and to embody His presence in the world by exercising social justice and righteousness. They were complicit in the practice of structural evil and ignored God's desire for them as a holy nation and people.
We may have elaborate worship, numerous Bible study, generous in our offerings and appear to be very religious. But when we are not seeking to live the will of God in our lives, our religious outlook is a total sham. When we confess Jesus Christ as our LORD, we are acknowledging Him as the LORD of all aspects of our life. If Jesus Christ is not the LORD of all, then he is certainly the LORD of none at all.

As we look forward to the coming of Jesus Christ again, we bear similarity with the Israelites who looked forward to the coming of the LORD in 750 B.C.E. They believed that the day when the LORD comes, it will be the day when their enemies are vanquished, their peace and security secured for eternity. Imagine their shock when they heard this from Amos:

Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord! Why do you want the day of the Lord?It is darkness, not light; as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake.Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? (5:18-20, NASB)

The day of the LORD is not the day of the Israelites' salvation, but their judgment! Isn't this strikingly similar to Jesus' judgment in Matt 5:21-23? The book of Amos is not meant for the Israelites nation in the past, but is a book that continues to speak to us today. The warning Amos is issuing to us is relevant to how we may continue to walk upright in the eyes of our LORD.

The Japanese elder who believes in full-time theological education

One of my classmates is a Japanese elder of a Presbyterian Church. Though he is about 28 years my senior, he believes in theological education and acts on his conviction. He is Mikio Miyagi, an Economics major graduate from University of the Ryukyu, one of the national universities in Japan.
He had been in business world after graduation in 1971 till 1999. His deployment as a Traffic manager and purchaser in Mitsubishi Caterpillar Ltd, a joint venture company between Mitsubishi and Caterpillar Corporation, gave him many opportunities to work overseas. His annual salary easily exceeds that of a school principal in Singapore. In September 1999, he entered full-time church ministry as a Director of Administration of Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Koza Church of Japan Presbytery.

He could have continued on in his career but his burden and vision for the church's ministry compelled him to make a choice. As he continued to serve in the ministry, he realized the needs for further education and this time, in theology. He prayed for a long period of time and together with his wife, made a few trips to the US to decide on a suitable seminary. In 2006, he visited Boston University School of Theology. After a series of discussion with the Admissions Office, he finally decided on this school to pursue Master of Theological Studies degree program full-time.

Below are photos we took together with Mikio and his wife, Taeko, last month. You will notice how much weight I have gained since we left S'pore. We were at his house for lunch on Dec20, 2007 and were treated to a special tea ceremony prepared by Taeko, his wife. We had an enjoyable time interacting together. When he showed Meifeng (Vivian) and me his PowerPoint slides about his church, we could read some of the Chinese characters in the Japanese script. We have more in common than I thought. We have been assisting each other in our common class and share a fellowship bought by the blood of Jesus Christ across national borders. His three children are now grown-ups and I am witnessing how God blesses his household.

I am inspired and continue to be motivated by his conviction and his determination to pursue a full-time theological education. For those of you who have pondered a theological education, whether full-time or part-time, this is a living testimony to encourage you to pursue your conviction.

Karen Lebacqz’s argument for human embryonic stem cell research

Among the theologians and religious ethicists I surveyed on their views of human embryonic stem cell research, I found Karen Lebacqz's argument to be very unique and outstanding. Let's hear what she has to say...

Bibliography:

Lebacqz, Karen. "Stem Cell Ethics: Lessons from Context." In Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics, edited by Nancy E. Snow, 85-99. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003.

It is estimated that there are over one million early embryos (blastocysts) leftover worldwide from in vitro fertilization¹. Usually, these embryos which are not implanted will be frozen. It is commonly agreed among IVF practitioners that after seven years in a frozen state, they are no longer "living."² If the embryos that are used in stem cell research are from "surplus" embryos that will not be implanted and are therefore consigned to death, one might argue that it is more respectful of the value of their life to continue that life in new form by turning those embryos into stem cells rather than simply throwing them in an incinerator³. Indeed, in her paper "Stem Cell Ethics"⁴, Karen Lebacqz, Robert Gordon Sproul Professor of Theological Ethics at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, asserts that there is no reason why stem cell research should be opposed if IVF with its concomitant creation and destruction of embryos is accepted. She further suggests that unless IVF is either rejected completely or revised very substantially, it is inconsistent to accept IVF but refuse stem cell research. She builds her argument further in her article by examining two ethical principles.

First, she questions what it means to treat people with respect. While we generally think that it is not respectful to kill a person, there are circumstances where it is more respectful to do so. An example is a person caught in a burning building with no chance of escape. She suggests that it is more respectful for us to shoot the person than to let the person be burnt to death. Where there is no autonomy or no sentience, and the person's destiny is death under any circumstances, then direct killing is morally justified.

Second, she questions the issue of moral integrity. She cites an example of a twin who had to be separated or else both would die. She is convinced that to sit back and watch both twins die when one could be saved is a selfish act. It is like an actor who is more concerned with keeping his hands clean than saving the lives of others and this is a lack of moral integrity.

Based on these two principles, she puts forth the idea that since blastocyst has no sentience or autonomy and is destined to death, direct killing may be morally countenanced. Failure to do so may reflect moral squeamishness about our own innocence or complicity in evil⁵. Hence, destruction of blastocysts for stem cell research is morally permissible. However, she reminds us that her proposal is in the context that IVF is generally accepted by the public. She remarks that it is worse to permit IVF than to permit human embryonic stem cell (hES) research.

Endnotes:
1. Rose M. Morgan, The Genetics Revolution: History, Fears and Future of a Life-Altering Science (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 137.
2. Karen Lebacqz, "Stem Cell Ethics: Lessons from Context," in Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics, ed. Nancy E. Snow (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003), 90.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 91.
5. Ibid., 96.

Survey of religious bodies’ view concerning human embryonic stem cell research in the US

I wrote a paper on the ethical issues in Stem Cell research for my Science & Religion class. During my literature survey, I was amazed to discover a plethora of voices concerning human embryonic stem cell research. I hope to share the following section so that you have an idea of how diversified we could be on the same issue, irregardless of our religious inclination.

Introduction
Several religious bodies have teachings in place regarding the moral status of human embryos, but they have not formally applied them to early embryos at approximately five days after fertilization. Since the question of whether to allow the destruction of early embryos in stem cell research is a major bone of contention among religious bodies, many consider it necessary to develop and present their positions regarding the moral legitimacy of this research in the public square.¹

1.1 Religious bodies who disapprove hES cell research
The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Southern Baptist, hold that from conception onward the embryo should be treated as a living human being. They rule out embryonic stem cell research as they believe that the early embryo has the moral status of a human being. In his statement to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Roman Catholic layman Edmund Pellegrino explains:

"In the Roman Catholic view, human life is a continuum from the one-cell stage to death. At every stage, human life has dignity and merits protection. Upon conception, the biological and ontological individuality of a human being is established."²

1.2 Religious bodies who believe in limited-day use of human embryos
The Anglican-Episcopal tradition has developed the view that the early embryo does not have the capacity to become a distinct individual with the potential to develop into a human being until the fourteenth-day point when the primitive streak, the precursor of the spinal cord, develops and the embryo can no longer split into several individuals.³
Within the Jewish tradition, the generally accepted belief is that the embryo is owed protection after 40 days of gestation. In his testimony before NBAC, Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler states that

"There are two prerequisites for the moral status of the embryo as a human being: implantation and 40 days of gestational development. The proposition that humanhood begins at zygote formation, even in vitro, is without basis in biblical moral theology."⁴

Whereas for many Islamic scholars, they maintain that human embryos take on human life at 120 days after conception. As Abdulaziz Sachedina testifies,

"It is correct to suggest that a majority of the Sunni and Shi'ite jurists will have little problem in endorsing ethically regulated research on the stem cells that promises potential therapeutic value."⁵

1.3 Religious bodies who accept hES cell research
In a resolution of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of 2001, it states:

"We believe, as do most authorities that have addressed the issue, that human embryos do have the potential of personhood, and as such they deserve respect. That respect must be shown by requiring that the interests or goals to be accomplished by using human embryos be compelling and unreachable by other means….Prohibition of the derivation of stem cells from embryos would elevate the showing of respect to human embryos above that of helping persons whose pain and suffering might be alleviated. Embryos resulting from infertility treatment to be used for such research must be limited to those embryos that do not have a chance of growing into personhood because the woman has decided to discontinue further treatments and they are not available for donation to another woman for personal or medical reasons, or because a donor is not available."⁶

Other than the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which accepts human embryonic stem research provided the embryos are surplus from the infertility treatment, the United Methodist Church subscribes to similar view. In his address to the UN Mission Ambassadors on the cloning concerns, Jim Winkler, an official of the United Methodist Church, states that

"The Church supports embryonic stem cell research using embryos leftover from In-vitro fertilization procedures, but NOT that research including cloning."⁷

1.4 Non-religious bodies who echo religious sentiments
Other individuals who are deeply committed to a religious tradition have also elected not to present the specific beliefs of their tradition in their public testimony. Instead they have appealed to generally held values. Gilbert Meilaender, whose roots are in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, did not seek to convince his audience by presenting specific scriptural or theological grounds for his position against embryonic stem cell research in his statement before NBAC. Instead, he sought to discuss the issue in terms that resonate with both Protestant and secular thought, such as the need to protect the weakest members of the community, what it means to be a person with a history, and the dangers of making ourselves the objects of our own technological manipulations. ⁸

1.5 Summary of religious views
In short, religious bodies, their representatives, and individuals who adhere to specific religious traditions have various responses to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. Some have set forth the distinctive resources of their faith, such as their sacred writings and theological teachings. Others have elected not only to explain how their religious writings and teachings have affected their beliefs about the morality of embryonic stem cell research, but also to introduce other considerations. Still others have referred exclusively to secular justifications that coincide with their religious visions and that resonate with those who do not share their religious convictions.⁹ Generally, the views among the Christian religious bodies can be broadly categorized into three sections: (i) those who are opposed to hES cells research; (ii) those who limit the use of embryos up to fourteenth-day; (iii) those who accept the use of surplus embryos from infertility treatment.

Endnotes:
1. Cynthia B. Cohen, "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research," in Handbook of Bioethics and Religion, ed. David E. Guinn (Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 131.
2. Edmund D. Pellegrino, "Testimony," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3. Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), F3-5
3. Cynthia B. Cohen, "The Moral Status of Early Embryos and New Genetic Interventions," in A Christian Response to the New Genetics, ed. David H. Smith and Cynthia B. Cohen (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 105-30; Report of a Working Party on Human Fertilisation and Embryology of the Board of Social Responsibility, Church of England, Personal Origins, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Church House Publishing, 1996), 32-45.
4. Moshe Dovid Tendler, "Stem Cell Research and Therapy: A Judeo-Biblical Perspective," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3, Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), H3-4.
5. Abdulaziz Sachedina, "Islamic Perspectives on Research with Human Embryonic Stem Cells," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3, Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), G3-6.
6. General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA), "Overture 01-50. On Adopting a Resolution Enunciating Ethical Guidelines for Fetal Tissue and Stem Cell Research—From the Presbytery of Baltimore," at http://www.pcusa.org/ga213/business/OVT0150.htm (accessed December 08, 2007).
7. Jim Winkler, "Winkler addresses Cloning concerns to UN Mission Ambassadors," November 19, 2004, at http://www.umc-gbcs.org (accessed December 08, 2007).
8. Cohen, "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research," 133.
9. Ibid., 134-5.

Bibliography:
Cohen, Cynthia B. "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research." In Handbook of Bioethics and Religion, edited by David E. Guinn, 129-142. Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Basics of Stem Cells

The person who is instrumental for my study in stem cells is Dr Olga V. Naidenko, a PhD holder in immunology from the UCLA Molecular Biology Institute. She was my instructor in Science Literacy class in Boston University School of Theology in Fall'07. Without her guidance and motivation, I would not be able to sustain my interest in the class as I had almost no biological and organic chemistry backgrounds; it also took some time for me to accustom her Russian accent. Not only did she ground me in the basics of organic chemistry and the issues in the origin of life; with her support, I acquired the basic terminology and concept in stem cell research. With that background, I could present the technical aspects of stem cell research to my classmates and move on to explore the ethical issues involved in another class. I dedicate this page to Dr Olga.

Many types of stem cells exist in the human body. All stem cells have the capacity to replicate, to self-renew and to differentiate in order to produce specific body parts. Stem cells can be classified into four broad types based on their origin, viz. stem cells from embryos; stem cells from the fetus; stem cells from the umbilical cord; and stem cells from the adult¹. All these stem cells have different capacities to differentiate and these capacities are generally classified as totipotent, pluripotent and multipotent.Totipotent cell is capable of forming every type of body cell. Each totipotent cell may replicate, differentiate and become a human being. Pluripotent stem cells can develop into any three major tissue types: endoderm (interior gut lining), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood) and ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). Pluripotent stem cells can eventually specialize in any bodily tissue, but they cannot themselves develop into a human being. Multipotent stem cells are tissue-specific stem cells committed to making blood, muscle, nerve, bone of other tissues².Most of the controversies surrounding stem cell research are focused on pluripotent cells. In order for us to understand the issue, we have to trace the development of a fertilized egg.1.2 Early development of a fertilized egg
Fertilization of an oocyte (unfertilized egg) by a sperm results in a one-cell zygote (fertilized egg), which begins to divide without any increase in size (Figure 1). By 3-4 days after fertilization, cell division results in a compact ball of 16-32 cells known as a morula. By 5-6 days, a blastocyst is formed consisting of a sphere of about 200-250 cells. The sphere is made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophectoderm), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells in the interior (the inner cell mass). The cells of the inner cell mass will give rise to the embryonic disk and ultimately the fetus, but not the placenta, which arises from the trophectoderm³. Among these three different types of cells, only the inner cell mass are pluripotent as they would develop and form all the parts of the human body.


1.3.1 Human embryonic stem cells
As early as 1994, Ariff Bongso, a researcher of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) program in National University of Singapore, first described isolation and culture of cells of the inner cell mass of human blastocysts⁵. Techniques for deriving and culturing stable human embryonic stem (hES) cell lines were first reported by James Thomson, an associate veterinarian in the University of Wisconsin's Regional Primate Research Center, in 1998⁶. Their techniques of isolating the hES cells have since become the standard in most stem cell research labs. First, spare fertilized eggs (embryos), which themselves are totipotent stem cells, are taken from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. They are next cultured to the blastocyst stage. The trophectoderm is then removed in order to extract the ICM. The ICM are separated before placing them on a feeder tray and cultured. These separated cells known as the hES cells divide and reproduce themselves. Each hES cell is pluripotent, capable of making any bodily tissue.Other than the surplus embryos from IVF clinics, there are other ways to obtain hES cells in vitro. There are embryos created in vitro specifically for stem cell research. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is another source of stem cells. In SCNT, the nucleus from the oocyte is removed. The oocyte without the nucleus is called the enucleated human oocyte. Adult donor cells are extracted and de-differentiated in cell culture before fusing it with the enucleated oocyte. This forms an embryo with the DNA of the donor intact. If grown to full term, it would produce a clone and the classic example is Dolly the sheep. This process is known as reproductive cloning. However, in most cases, the embryo would be cultivated till blastocyst stage before being terminated and this is known as therapeutic cloning.1.3.2 Adult Stem Cells
Perhaps the least controversial method for producing stem cell is by cultivating adult stems cells. Adult stem cells are obtained from adult body and they can be derived in very small quantity from any one person. The most familiar example is extracting hematopoietic stem cells from bone marrow. Once these are removed from human body, they are cultured in tissue culture flasks, with addition of appropriate liquid nutrient medium.1.3.3 Human Embryonic Germ Cells
Last but not least is another method developed by John Gearhart, a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in 1998. His procedure involves drawing human embryonic germ cells (hEG cells) from fetal gonadal tissue. These cells, when taken from an aborted fetus at about five to eight week stage, resemble in nearly all respects the pluripotent stem cells⁷. It is not yet clear whether or not hES cells are identical to hEG. Both are pluripotent and appear to be equivalent in function. Yet, it may be discovered that different alleles appear in different hES, because hES cells could be imprinted by either the male or female source. The blastocyst stage of embryogenesis is a stage that avoids the gender imprint. What is not yet known is whether original gender imprint will matter. For the foreseeable future the two types of stem cells will be treated the same⁸.1.3.4 Summary of sources of stem cellsTo summarize, stem cells may be derived from:(i) Surplus embryos from IVF;(ii) Embryos created specifically for research;(iii) Somatic cell nuclear transfer;(iv) Adult stem cells;(v) Aborted fetus at about five to eight week stage.
1.3 Sources of Stem Cells

Figure 1: Preimplantation development⁴

1.1 Classification of stem cells

Ariff Bongso, Eng Hin Lee. "Stem Cells: Their Definition, Classification and Sources." In Stem Cells: From Bench to Bedside, edited by Eng Hin Lee, Ariff Bongso, 1-13. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2005.

Peters, Ted. Science, Theology, and Ethics. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003.

Endnotes:
1. Ariff Bongso and Eng Hin Lee," Stem Cells: Their Definition, Classification and Sources," in Stem Cells: From Bench to Bedside, ed. Ariff Bongso and Eng Hin Lee (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2005), 3.
2. Ted Peters, Science, Theology, and Ethics (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003), 179.
3. Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 29-30. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11278.html
4. Ibid, 30.
5. Bongso, A., Fong, C. Y., Ng, S. C., and Ratnam, S.,"Isolation and culture of inner cell mass cells from human blastocysts,"in Human Reproduction, 1994, 9:2110-2117.
6. Thomson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., Waknitz, M. A., Swiergiel, J. J., Marshall, V. S., and Jones, J. M., "Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts," in Science, 1998, 282:1145-1147.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 180.

Bibliography: