Bioethics and Future Hope: An Eschatological View of the Future

A recap of Talks 1 & 2

Last night Professor John Wyatt presented his final talk in the 2009 New College Lectures - ‘Bioethics and Future Hope’. In his first talk (here) he described two alternative worldviews, one he termed materialistic which he suggested sees life as the result of random events with no underlying purpose; matter is all there is. He contrasted this with a Christian worldview that sees the cosmos as founded in the intentions of a Creator. Humans he argued are the creative work of God and are made in his image. Each worldview he argued leads to different views of personhood that shape our choices about life and death.

In his second lecture (here) he took this further and challenged the materialist’s view of life, that it is little more than well-evolved matter. He stressed that a worldview based on biblical understanding views humans as both physical and immaterial beings. He critiqued the language of ‘potentiality’ and the philosopher’s notion of a ‘not quite yet a person’ when applied to the embryo, or the ‘no longer a person’ judgement made of the terminally ill, demented or brain injured person in the final stages of life.

He also talked of the different views of pain and suffering, life and death that flow from these different worldviews. He pointed to the great fear of our time - loss of independence and autonomy - and the renewed acceptance of an old folly, seeing suicide and euthanasia as noble ways to die when faced with what is judged to be a less than human existence. Such a judgement he reminded us overlooks the fact that sometimes the image of God is seen most clearly in brokenness and the imperfect.

A Christian understanding of future hope

In his final talk he closed the circle by not only considering the end of life but our future eternal hope. The physical universe and our place within it have a clear purpose, hope and future. He argued that our future would not be a human construct, an artefact of our ingenuity and the ability to control our destinies. Instead, he suggested that the future is a reflection of the loving purposes of God. In Jesus we not only see God but the perfect human being, the one in whose likeness a new creation will spring.

Paul in writing to the church in Rome expressed our future hope this way:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:18-25)

The need for a biblical (NOT secular) eschatology

As he concluded the series Professor Wyatt challenged the audience to consider a biblical eschatology that speaks of the coming kingdom of God founded in and through Christ. This was our only hope, not a secular eschatology that places our hope in humanity's ability to reconstruct the future.

In pointing to the Bible’s eschatological view of the future (as both a Christian and a medical practitioner) he reminded us that in Christian thought, love is joined with the other virtues of faith and hope:

'And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love’ (1 Cor 13:13)

“They are virtues which all point to the future. To use theological jargon, they are eschatological virtues, pointing towards the end times. When we love someone in the present, showing practical, empathic, respectful, sacrificial caring, we are also pointing them to the future, to the hope of the resurrection. We are treating someone now in the light of what they are going to be. This is why we can still respect and treat with dignity even the most tragically damaged of human beings. The malformed baby, the person in the persistent vegetative state, the profoundly demented individual are those who can, in God's grace, be transformed to become a new creation. So practical Christian caring for those with a degenerative condition like dementia is not a sentimental nostalgic reaction, treating someone with respect just because of what they once were. We treat them with respect because of the God-like image that, in his grace, they will display in the future. In fact, Christian love can only be intelligible in the light of the Christian hope.”

You can download all three talks as MP3 files from the New College Website (here).

Related Links

Post on Talk 1 - 'Bioethics and Creation' (here)

Post on Talk 2 - 'Bioethics and Redemption' (here)

Full details on the lectures (here)

All CASE posts on medical ethics (here)

Information on John Wyatt's book 'Matters of Life and Death' (here)

Bioethics and Redemption: Understanding pain, suffering and death

Prof John Wyatt presented the second of three public lectures in the annual New College Lectures last night. His second talk was titled "Bioethics and Redemption". Like his first talk (here) he spoke with humility and grace; treating a complex topic and difficult issues with great sensitivity and respect.

1. Christian thinking about the human embryo

He began once again with fundamentals – human development before birth – the “human embryo”, a unique type of being. Not a baby 'not quite born', nor a collection of genetic material. It is something unique, different in kind. He then went on to consider what it is to be human – a foundational ethical issue. In considering this, he spoke helpfully of two tensions. First, between the 'physical and the immaterial' - two aspects of 'being' locked together in humanity. Humans are fully physical and fully ‘immaterial’. He reminded us that 'materialists' (e.g. Peter Singer) would want to see humans as machines that have achieved a level of self-consciousness. The 'philosophical idealist' he suggested would see us as spiritual beings attached to bodies for a time. Alternatively he argued that the 'biblical anthropologist' denies both these positions and suggests that we are at one and the same time physical and spiritual beings. This tension he reminded us is seen in the incarnation (Jesus – fully human and fully God), the Bible (human writers divinely inspired), divine providence (God at work through the evil acts of men who crucify God’s Son).

The second tension he mentioned was between the ‘already’ and the ‘not-yet’. The Bible would suggest that we are already human beings but in Christ becoming something else. We are already made in God’s image, but we are being transformed into the likeness of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). He then critiqued the language of 'potentiality' and the philosopher's notion of 'not quite yet' a person when applied to the embryo. He suggested that we should stop talking of Human Embryos and begin talking of ‘Embryonic Humans’ that could sit alongside the use of terms like foetal humans, adult humans, geriatric humans and resurrected humans.

2. Conflicting views on evil, suffering and death

He suggested that to the 'materialist', all evil is a consequence of "meaningless molecular interactions". Hence the minimisation of suffering becomes the supreme moral good and suicide a noble death.

He offered new insights into the potential of stem cell research for good, but questioned the use of human stem cell research and the harvesting and creation of embryos for varied purposes. He pointed out that there are ethically acceptable alternative sources of stem cells, including adult bone marrow, skin cells and umbilical cord blood and tissue.

We then considered what I would call the major public ethical dilemma of the last few weeks in this Australia. We have felt the pain of Christian Rossiter, who wants to die and escape what he sees as “being a prisoner in his own body” (see reference to this story here). How are we to respond to these types of real life situations? There are challenges for all in the face of suffering, but this is more acute for a humanity that sees suffering, death and pain as things that are meaningless and that have no place in their worldview. He put his finger on one of the great fears of our time – loss of independence and autonomy. Suicide and euthanasia are increasingly seen as noble ways to die, when faced with what is seen as meaningless suffering and what is judged to be a less than human existence.

3. Christian perspectives on death and suffering

We then considered a Christian perspective on death and suffering as Prof Wyatt brought us back to the Bible. He argued that death is not natural and was not part of God's plan (some will want to challenge this view), and that for many, it can only be seen as the ultimate terror. But the Bible teaches that the Christian's attitude to death and suffering is to be different – it is not meaningless, for it comes from the hand of God and it produces endurance, character and hope (Rom 5:1-11). He then argued that in Christ (his incarnation, death and resurrection) we find the lens through which we must view our painful contemporary dilemmas. It is in the hope of Christ that we find peace, complete redemption, eternal joy and fulfilment in worship and praise of our God.

Professor Wyatt illustrated how the Christian hope can change the way we view suffering and death with stories of people from his own clinical and personal experience, who have gone where few of us have been, and where none of us would choose to go. And yet, in each case he pointed out, that the people who had suffered from degenerative disease, the birth of a child with a degenerative illness or disability, the evil of rape and a resulting pregnancy, had all seen God glorified and their lives enriched in the midst of pain and suffering. The ultimate paradox it would seem is that sometimes the image of God is seen most clearly in brokenness and the imperfect, with of course the cross being the ultimate example. Pain and suffering can be transformed by the grace of God and used for his purposes.

Finally, he challenged us to avoid judgement and stand instead with people who go where we would never want to go. We are to love and serve them as God works out his redemptive plan for their lives and in fact all of his creation. Whether it is through better palliative care, pregnancy support centres or support of families in crisis, we must offer alternatives that help people to deal with pain and suffering and point them to the hope of Christ. His 3rd talk tonight is titled 'Bioethics and Future Hope'.

You can download all three talks from the New College Website as MP3 files (here).

Related posts

Full details on the lectures (here)

Post on talk 1 in the series on 'Bioethics and Future Hope' (here)

Other CASE posts on medical ethics (here)

John Wyatt's book 'Matters of Life and Death' (here)

Two worldviews: Two views of life and death

Prof John Wyatt presented the first of three public lectures in the annual New College Lectures tonight. His first talk was titled "Bioethics and Creation".

He spoke with humility and compassion about the struggles that medical practitioners face every day due to advances in technology and science that open up choices not previously available. He also spoke graciously of the decisions ordinary people make in their daily lives as they deal with infertility, disability, degenerative illness, the risks of unplanned pregnancy, and foetal abnormalities and disease.

He structured the talk around explanation of two worldviews of the origin and nature of reality. The first, which he termed "Materialism" – one that sees reality as nothing but matter and energy and scientific laws governing how they interact (The Dawkins view of reality). Creation for the person holding this worldview only has a physical reality with no underlying purpose; human beings are seen as the result of a series of improbable and random events. A view he referred to as “the faith of the enlightenment” with its followers people who are on a quest for freedom from the restraints of nature.

The second worldview, a Christian understanding of reality, sees the cosmos as founded in the intentions of a Creator. Creation is no accident; there is a plan. All that we see unfolding before us is oriented towards the future plans of God. God has created the physical stuff that is easy to observe and the hidden moral order that is part of it. Humans are no accident; they are the creative work (no matter by what method) of God, made in his likeness and for his purposes. We are not self-explanatory; we derive our meaning from outside of ourselves – from God!

The second view of reality is based on the teachings of the Bible, and leads to a different view of personhood that should constrain our choices in accordance with God's loving purposes for us. Prof Wyatt argued that even when sin distorts the image of the creator in all of us, God works through our pain, our imperfections and the taking up of each other's burdens.

"As we face the challenges of advances in biology and biotechnology, it is vital for Christians to rediscover an authentically biblical view of what it means to be a human being – a biblical anthropology. In fact biblical ethics (the way we should behave) is derived from biblical anthropology (the way we are made)."

A different view of what it is to be human in turn leads to different hopes, aspirations and expectations for life and death.

For those in Sydney Prof Wyatt will present his second lecture at New College tomorrow evening at 7.30pm. The topic is “Bioethics and Redemption". Full details are on our website.

You can download all three talks in the series here

Professor John Wyatt

Professor Wyatt’s current position is as a clinical academic at the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at University College London Hospitals - an internationally recognised tertiary centre for the care of the newborn. He has supervised a range of research projects including the use of new methods of optical brain scanning in babies and research on pre-term and brain-injured infants. He also has a long-standing interest in philosophical, ethical and religious issues raised by advances in medical technology. His is author of the widely acclaimed book 'Matters of Life and Death'

Apologetics is more than just winning arguments

Most definitions of apologetics start with Peter’s call in his first letter (1 Peter 3:15) to always be “…prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”. Typical of these definitions is Steven Cowan’s - “..the defence of the Christian faith against charges of falsehood, inconsistency or credulity” in ‘Five Views on Apologetics’. A definition like Cowan’s pushes us towards methods based on reason and argument. Paul’s defence before Roman officials (Acts 24-25) is one example of how this is done.

But most contemporary apologists suggest that apologetics must not just be defensive, it should also be ‘offensive’. While defensive apologetics involves refuting arguments, ‘offensive’ apologetics offers positive reasons for the Christian faith. Is this simply argument by another name? Perhaps, but this type of dialogue has a different origin and can be conducted on different terms.

CASE publishes a quarterly apologetics magazine (Case - our last issue was on the theme 'The God of Science') that I edit which is concentrating on the nature of apologetics in its next issue (due out in 3 weeks). We’ve done this because we believe that apologetics is commonly misunderstood and neglected by many Christians. Our writers show how relational and rational apologetics can co-exist. While not denying the importance of knowledge, they collectively underline that apologetics takes place between people sharing relationships.

I am always challenged by the varied contributions in each issue, and this one is no exception. In my introduction to the magazine I identify a number of foundational principles that I think help us to rethink attitudes and approaches to apologetics; here are four of them.

Apologetics is more than winning arguments

In offering a defence or reason for the hope that we have in Christ, we must do more than simply seek to win arguments; our lives must also commend Christ. David Hohne contributes an excellent essay in which he uses Peter’s challenge in his first letter (1 Peter 2:12) to have lives that commend God to others.

“Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”

David Hohne argues that our defence should not be simply rational argument; we must use our ‘head, heart and hands’ and live as apologetic people in apologetic communities - “…our whole lives as both a defence and commendation of the grace of God in Christ.” The church is not separate from culture, and yet it should stand out against it.

Michael Jensen who also contributes to the issue makes the related point that the church needs to build “communities of grace” and demonstrate authentic Christian lives. Christ-centred communities draw attention to the one in whom its members place their hope.

We must look for new ways to engage in apologetics

In another excellent contribution to the magazine Andrew Bain points out that a common error with apologetics is to see it as just skills and tasks to be learned. He suggests that we must become better at connecting key elements of the Christian faith and the related themes of the culturally rich world in which we dwell. We need to articulate, for the benefit of others, those points of “conflict and connection” between Christian doctrines (e.g. the Trinity, revelation, Scripture, and Christology) and the key themes of the cultural and intellectual world in which we live.

Beware of apologetic transposition

Richard Gibson and Mike Thompson in an article titled “What happened to God’s emotions? (A warning to the apologist from history)” warn us to be true to the gospel we proclaim. They argue that we must be careful not to strip God of elements of his character as we present him to the world. Their focus in this paper (by way of example) is a consideration of three 2nd century apologists (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Clement of Alexandria) who they suggest used impassibility in a sense designed to rule out emotion as part of the character of God. They warn that in making the gospel intelligible we must avoid ending up presenting a God and a gospel inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.

Exercise humility as we present Christ

A common theme (and one I’ve written about on this blog before HERE) is the need for a more ‘humble apologetic’. Michael Jensen writes that we must prayerfully approach our dialogue with others with the knowledge that God is sovereign in our apologetics. As well, he commends the apologist to listen attentively and intelligently, and be prepared to say ‘I don’t know’. Similarly, William Lane Craig commends us to be “relational, humble and invitational”. We must present the reasons for our hope “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

Case 20 details

The themed contents of Case 20 include the following contributions:

David Hohne, ‘Becoming an Apologetic Person’

Andrew Bain, ‘Theological Apologetics: A Program for Action’

Richard J. Gibson & Michael Thompson, ‘What happened to God’s emotions? (A warning to the apologist from history)’

Michael Jensen, ‘16 Verbs for a 21^st Century Apologetics’

William Lane Craig, ‘Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It?’

There are also two reviews:

Jonathan Marquet, ‘The Household: Informal Order Around the Hearth’

Kamal Weerakoon, ‘Kant and the Early Moderns’

Associates of CASE will receive their copies in three weeks. If you’d like to become an Associate check our website HERE.

Related Previous Posts

'Humble Apologetics' (here)
'Apologetics in Family Life' (here)
'Apologetics of the Heart' (here)