Evangelicals and Human Dignity
Evangelicals and Human Dignity
The idea of human dignity is on hard times these days. The work of the President’s Council on Bioethics under the guidance of Leon Kass, MD, provoked bioethicist Ruth Macklin to brand human dignity a “useless concept.” Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker even assailed the notion of dignity as a “stupidity” in a screed he wrote for The New Republic. Preserving a robust notion of human dignity seems to me to be a task worthy of evangelicals in the 21st century.
After all, both the Bible and the Church affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully God and fully human. What do we learn from the person of Jesus about what it means to be human? How does our Christology inform our anthropology? First, we learn from the physician Luke, among others, that Jesus was born of woman. Although his conception was miraculous, as far as we can know his gestation was like that of all other human babies. For instance, we know that his mother Mary carried him in her womb from conception to birth. There is no reason, then, not to assume that, like every other human being, Jesus began human life as an embryo. In addition, Luke informs us that the angel Gabriel told Mary to name her baby “Jesus” when she was only six months pregnant. Just as today, naming was an important ritual. Jesus seems to be treated as a person even before his birth. We know that Mary was pregnant with Jesus when her cousin Elizabeth was six months pregnant with the son later known as John the Baptist. Again, except for the nature of his conception and his naming, Jesus’ early development appears to be normal. Then we read in “And while they were [in Bethlehem] the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the Inn” (Luke 2:7).
So, we can infer several important truths about human anthropology on the basis of biblical Christology. First, our humanity begins in utero. We are human beings from conception. This is not surprising given what we now know about genetics. We inherit 23 chromosomes from our mothers and 23 from our fathers. When those chromosomes combine through fertilization, at least one (twinning could occur) genetically unique human being is conceived. Second, we are embodied human beings from conception. That is, even though not fully developed, the early embryo is an organic, carbon-based living human organism. Embodiment plays a central role in both Christology and anthropology since, like Jesus, from conception throughout eternity we will enjoy an embodied existence. There is no other way to be human than to be embodied. The church acknowledges Jesus’ embodiment—and our own—each time we feast at the Lord’s Table in communion.
This anthropology is consistent with what the rest of Scripture teaches. When God created humanity he made Adam “a living being” (Genesis 1:24) with a material body (cf. Psalm 90:3; 103:14). Human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, were made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27). The imago Dei is not what humans do, but who humans are.
Moreover, the Bible teaches that human beings are unique among all other created beings. For instance, only human beings are imagers of God. We learn from Genesis 9, that being imagers of God brings unique obligations. Animals may kill and be killed for food (Genesis 9:1-6a), but “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his image” (Gen. 9:6, emphasis added). Animals may be killed for human sustenance, but human beings may not be killed without just cause. Unjustifiable killing is a violation of the special dignity vested in human beings by God himself. The imago Dei is, therefore, the foundation of the doctrine of the sanctity, or sacredness, of every human life. In summary, every human life is to be received as a gift from the sovereign Creator, treated with reverence and respect, and should not to be harmed without biblical justification.
The practice of abortion is not something new. We tend to think of obstetrics and gynecology as shiny new science, but people have been having babies for a very long time. And, sadly, abortion is not new.
Old Testament Judaism prohibited abortion. Only one biblical text has been used to argue to the contrary, Exodus 21:22-25. There Moses is giving an interpretation of the laws about the treatment of slaves. In verse 22 he describes a case in which two men are fighting. In the course of their struggle, they accidentally hit a pregnant woman, causing harm to her unborn baby. Some texts interpret the harm as a miscarriage, others as a premature live birth. The way this argument goes is, if a miscarriage was the result of the fight and a fine (v. 23) not death (a life for a life) is required, then it seems clear that unborn human life does not have the same value as someone already born.
There are good textual reasons to understand Moses to be describing a premature live birth. First, the Hebrew word yeled is used for what comes from the womb following the fight. This word is never used except for a child who can live outside the womb. Another Hebrew word, golem, means “fetus,” and is only used one time in the Old Testament (Psalm 139:16). Furthermore, yatza, the verb that refers to what happened to the child after the injury to the mother, ordinarily refers to live births (Gen 25:26; 38:28-30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer 1:5, 20:18). The word normally used for miscarriage, shakol, is not used here (cf. Gen 31:38; Exod 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos 9:14). Finally, even if the text were referring to a miscarriage, it would not necessarily indicate that an unborn child is of less value than one who is already born. Note that this hypothetical case refers to an accident. The men did not mean to harm the child. Most societies, including ancient Jewish society, recognized that manslaughter should be distinguished from premeditated killing. This does not imply a distinction in the value of the life that was taken but in the culpability of the one who took the life. Wanton premeditation requires one sort of penalty, in this case death, manslaughter another. Cities of refuge were established (cf. Numbers 35:6) for those who committed less heinous crimes. More literal versions translate Exodus 21:22: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined . . . (ESV)” Others interpret the meaning of the clause, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury” (NIV).
In Psalm 139, David speaks vividly to the nature of unborn human life. In his lofty psalm, David exults both in God’s omniscience and omnipresence (vv. 1-12). In verse 13 he celebrates God’s intricate involvement in his own fetal development: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” The word kilyah is used to refer to the “inward parts” (literally, reins or kidneys). In Hebrew poetry the inward parts were typically understood to be the seat of the affections, the hidden part of a person where grief may be experienced (Job 16:13), where the conscience exists (Psalm 15:7), and where deep spiritual distress is sometimes felt (Psalm 72:21). God formed David’s deepest being. He wove his body or “colorfully embroidered” him in his mother’s womb, so that he was “fearfully and wonderfully made” (v. 14). In light of this reality, David’s confession in Psalm 51:5 that he was a sinner from conception offers abundant testimony to his belief in personhood from conception, since only persons can be sinners.
In Ps 139:16, David refers to God observing “unformed substance.” David uses the word golem—used only here in the Old Testament—to suggest that God’s knowledge reached even to his earliest development in utero. No wonder the Hebrews found abortion and infanticide morally reprehensible.
Later in the history of God’s people, God’s judgment fell on those who killed the unborn. Elisha wept when he foresaw the crimes of the king of Syria who would “kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12). And Amos prophesied against the Ammonites because they “have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (Amos 1:13).
These texts doubtless inform the non-canonical Jewish wisdom literature that further codified the Bible’s view of abortion. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (c. 50 B.C.-50 A.D.), said, for instance, that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.” Included among the “wicked” in the apocalyptic Sibylline Oracle, were women who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” and sorcerers who dispense abortion-causing drugs. Similarly, the apocryphal book, 1 Enoch (first or second-century B.C.), declared that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb.” Finally, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that “The law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus.”
Contrast these injunctions with the barbarism of Roman culture. Cicero (106-43 BC) indicated that according to the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, “deformed infants shall be killed” (De Legibus 3.8). Plutarch (c. 46-120 AD) spoke of those whom he said “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan” (Moralia 2.171D). According to an inscription at Delphi, because of the infanticide of female newborns, only one percent of six hundred families had raised two daughters. European historian W. E. H. Lecky called infanticide “one of the deepest stains of the ancient civilizations.”
Against this horrific backdrop, the Hebrew doctrine of the “sanctity of human life” provided the moral framework for early Christian condemnation of abortion and infanticide. For instance, the Didache (c. 85-110), sometimes called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles,” commanded, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Another non-canonical early Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 AD), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.” Additional examples of Christian disapprobation of both infanticide and abortion can be multiplied. In fact, New Testament scholar Michael Gorman has argued that the New Testament’s silence on abortion is due to the fact that it was simply beyond the pale of early Christian practice.
Christians did not merely condemn abortion and infanticide, however, they provided alternatives, adopting children who were destined to be abandoned. For instance, Callistus (died c. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes. Benignus of Dijon (3rd Century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by failed abortions.
In summary, the witness of Scripture and the testimony of the early church is that every human being, from conception through natural death is to be respected as an imager of God whose life has special dignity in virtue of his or her relationship to the Creator. The doctrine of human dignity is written into the warp and woof of biblical faith.
I am so happy to read about dignity as it is lost among the ranting and raving. When we objectify others, their point of view becomes meaningless.
I would like to see another post discussing how we might interact in light of a high view of human dignity.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I am so happy to read about dignity as it is lost among the ranting and raving. When we objectify others, their point of view becomes meaningless.
I would like to see another post discussing how we might interact in light of a high view of human dignity.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I am so happy to read about dignity as it is lost among the ranting and raving. When we objectify others, their point of view becomes meaningless.
I would like to see another post discussing how we might interact in light of a high view of human dignity.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks for this. I needed a reminder.
Thanks for this. I needed a reminder.
Thanks for this. I needed a reminder.
The historical material here is a good corrective to Sarah's historical claims about the classical world in her last post, although I'm not sure it's clear or fair to make the quotation from Plutarch — which is really about Carthaginians — reflect on "Roman culture." Strictly speaking, Romans were citizens of Rome, and Rome banned child sacrifice in 97 BC. According to Pliny the Elder this was a symbolic gesture against a practice that had become offensive and rare.
The problems I see with Ben's argument is that it's not historically grounded enough either and regrettably doesn't engage with the valid points about canonical interpretive diversity and latitude that I wish Sarah had made a bit better. I am also surprised the easiest, best, and most widely accepted ethical arguments are not offered, namely that abortion is a personal and communal moral failure to the extent that it is motivated by intimidation or force, fear, shame, selfishness and/or malice.
Starting off by saying Jesus was once a fertilized egg so all fertilized eggs are raised to the dignity of being "fully human" and have an intrinsic value is a surprisingly novel and not very compelling argument as fertilized eggs "die" all the time in the normal functioning of a woman's reproductive system. Neither is it remotely similar to any historical Christian or Jewish position with the possible exception of the early eastern church. To the contrary, the idea of "conception" and of life and humanity beginning then is a very recent construct. Jewish thought has generally agreed that the unborn are not fully human (not persons) up until quickening. Latin Christianity was substantially the same in its conclusions. It was only in the time of the early Greek fathers of the church that abortion was condemned as murder — and even without exception for "early" abortions. I am not sure why this teaching fell out of favor after the 4th century, but evidently it did.
Contrary to Ben's interpretation, Rabbinic law sees Exodus 21 as indicating abortion is not killing or murder so it may be permissable in some cases while the Talmud uses Genesis 9 as Ben does, to make the opposite argument. The problem of the whether either text is relevant to abortion and how is acknowledged in rabbinic tradition, not resolved once and for all, but there is definitely much more tolerance for abortion. The Mishna says there is an ethical obligation to abort the child to save the mother unless the child has been "mostly" born.
On the question of the ontological and legal status of the unborn child, the Talmud says the fetus is only water until the 40th day, and mourning rituals are not used for unborn children who die. Christian thought from Augustine down to Anselm and Aquinas is based on Aristotle's conception of ensoulment but comes to virtually the same conclusion of an approximately 40 day point marking the quickening or discernibly animated life of the developing child. (This was written into canon law and articulated by several popes.)
Of course no Jewish or Christian commentator says abortion is just fine or morally unproblematic, however. From the Christian perspective after Augustine abortion was explicitly an evil and a serious sin but not murder or killing in the early stages of fetal development. It was not to be equated with infanticide.
These facts do not allow us to assert "The witness of Scripture and the testimony of the early church is that every human being, from conception through natural death is to be respected as an imager of God whose life has special dignity in virtue of his or her relationship to the Creator." I think we can only make that argument based on Christian tradition from the 1st to 4th centuries coupled with modern science. I.e., you can contend that the medieval Aristotelian and Jewish views of gestation were simply wrong, biologically speaking, but the early church of the Didache and Basil the Great were not "right" for their biological rationale. If I recall correctly, they were often fighting abortion and abortifacients used as contraceptives in opposition to the idea of *contraception* itself by any other method than abstinence.
The historical material here is a good corrective to Sarah's historical claims about the classical world in her last post, although I'm not sure it's clear or fair to make the quotation from Plutarch — which is really about Carthaginians — reflect on "Roman culture." Strictly speaking, Romans were citizens of Rome, and Rome banned child sacrifice in 97 BC. According to Pliny the Elder this was a symbolic gesture against a practice that had become offensive and rare.
The problems I see with Ben's argument is that it's not historically grounded enough either and regrettably doesn't engage with the valid points about canonical interpretive diversity and latitude that I wish Sarah had made a bit better. I am also surprised the easiest, best, and most widely accepted ethical arguments are not offered, namely that abortion is a personal and communal moral failure to the extent that it is motivated by intimidation or force, fear, shame, selfishness and/or malice.
Starting off by saying Jesus was once a fertilized egg so all fertilized eggs are raised to the dignity of being "fully human" and have an intrinsic value is a surprisingly novel and not very compelling argument as fertilized eggs "die" all the time in the normal functioning of a woman's reproductive system. Neither is it remotely similar to any historical Christian or Jewish position with the possible exception of the early eastern church. To the contrary, the idea of "conception" and of life and humanity beginning then is a very recent construct. Jewish thought has generally agreed that the unborn are not fully human (not persons) up until quickening. Latin Christianity was substantially the same in its conclusions. It was only in the time of the early Greek fathers of the church that abortion was condemned as murder — and even without exception for "early" abortions. I am not sure why this teaching fell out of favor after the 4th century, but evidently it did.
Contrary to Ben's interpretation, Rabbinic law sees Exodus 21 as indicating abortion is not killing or murder so it may be permissable in some cases while the Talmud uses Genesis 9 as Ben does, to make the opposite argument. The problem of the whether either text is relevant to abortion and how is acknowledged in rabbinic tradition, not resolved once and for all, but there is definitely much more tolerance for abortion. The Mishna says there is an ethical obligation to abort the child to save the mother unless the child has been "mostly" born.
On the question of the ontological and legal status of the unborn child, the Talmud says the fetus is only water until the 40th day, and mourning rituals are not used for unborn children who die. Christian thought from Augustine down to Anselm and Aquinas is based on Aristotle's conception of ensoulment but comes to virtually the same conclusion of an approximately 40 day point marking the quickening or discernibly animated life of the developing child. (This was written into canon law and articulated by several popes.)
Of course no Jewish or Christian commentator says abortion is just fine or morally unproblematic, however. From the Christian perspective after Augustine abortion was explicitly an evil and a serious sin but not murder or killing in the early stages of fetal development. It was not to be equated with infanticide.
These facts do not allow us to assert "The witness of Scripture and the testimony of the early church is that every human being, from conception through natural death is to be respected as an imager of God whose life has special dignity in virtue of his or her relationship to the Creator." I think we can only make that argument based on Christian tradition from the 1st to 4th centuries coupled with modern science. I.e., you can contend that the medieval Aristotelian and Jewish views of gestation were simply wrong, biologically speaking, but the early church of the Didache and Basil the Great were not "right" for their biological rationale. If I recall correctly, they were often fighting abortion and abortifacients used as contraceptives in opposition to the idea of *contraception* itself by any other method than abstinence.
The historical material here is a good corrective to Sarah's historical claims about the classical world in her last post, although I'm not sure it's clear or fair to make the quotation from Plutarch — which is really about Carthaginians — reflect on "Roman culture." Strictly speaking, Romans were citizens of Rome, and Rome banned child sacrifice in 97 BC. According to Pliny the Elder this was a symbolic gesture against a practice that had become offensive and rare.
The problems I see with Ben's argument is that it's not historically grounded enough either and regrettably doesn't engage with the valid points about canonical interpretive diversity and latitude that I wish Sarah had made a bit better. I am also surprised the easiest, best, and most widely accepted ethical arguments are not offered, namely that abortion is a personal and communal moral failure to the extent that it is motivated by intimidation or force, fear, shame, selfishness and/or malice.
Starting off by saying Jesus was once a fertilized egg so all fertilized eggs are raised to the dignity of being "fully human" and have an intrinsic value is a surprisingly novel and not very compelling argument as fertilized eggs "die" all the time in the normal functioning of a woman's reproductive system. Neither is it remotely similar to any historical Christian or Jewish position with the possible exception of the early eastern church. To the contrary, the idea of "conception" and of life and humanity beginning then is a very recent construct. Jewish thought has generally agreed that the unborn are not fully human (not persons) up until quickening. Latin Christianity was substantially the same in its conclusions. It was only in the time of the early Greek fathers of the church that abortion was condemned as murder — and even without exception for "early" abortions. I am not sure why this teaching fell out of favor after the 4th century, but evidently it did.
Contrary to Ben's interpretation, Rabbinic law sees Exodus 21 as indicating abortion is not killing or murder so it may be permissable in some cases while the Talmud uses Genesis 9 as Ben does, to make the opposite argument. The problem of the whether either text is relevant to abortion and how is acknowledged in rabbinic tradition, not resolved once and for all, but there is definitely much more tolerance for abortion. The Mishna says there is an ethical obligation to abort the child to save the mother unless the child has been "mostly" born.
On the question of the ontological and legal status of the unborn child, the Talmud says the fetus is only water until the 40th day, and mourning rituals are not used for unborn children who die. Christian thought from Augustine down to Anselm and Aquinas is based on Aristotle's conception of ensoulment but comes to virtually the same conclusion of an approximately 40 day point marking the quickening or discernibly animated life of the developing child. (This was written into canon law and articulated by several popes.)
Of course no Jewish or Christian commentator says abortion is just fine or morally unproblematic, however. From the Christian perspective after Augustine abortion was explicitly an evil and a serious sin but not murder or killing in the early stages of fetal development. It was not to be equated with infanticide.
These facts do not allow us to assert "The witness of Scripture and the testimony of the early church is that every human being, from conception through natural death is to be respected as an imager of God whose life has special dignity in virtue of his or her relationship to the Creator." I think we can only make that argument based on Christian tradition from the 1st to 4th centuries coupled with modern science. I.e., you can contend that the medieval Aristotelian and Jewish views of gestation were simply wrong, biologically speaking, but the early church of the Didache and Basil the Great were not "right" for their biological rationale. If I recall correctly, they were often fighting abortion and abortifacients used as contraceptives in opposition to the idea of *contraception* itself by any other method than abstinence.
Dan,
Why do you use the phrase "fertilized egg" to refer to a human embryo?
Peace,
Justin
Dan,
Why do you use the phrase "fertilized egg" to refer to a human embryo?
Peace,
Justin
Dan,
Why do you use the phrase "fertilized egg" to refer to a human embryo?
Peace,
Justin
Justin, the term "fertilized egg" best described the conditions from conception to the early embryonic state over the first 5-7 days after which the term "embryo" is used. Both would apply perfectly well to the point I was making.
If the incarnation dignifies human life from conception on through early embryonic development in a way that compels us, morally and legislatively, to recognize these stages of development as "fully human," this is deeply problematic for what it means in terms of rights and transgressions of rights, even within a relatively homogeneous religious society that accepts the theological premise. It may create more problems than it solves.
Justin, the term "fertilized egg" best described the conditions from conception to the early embryonic state over the first 5-7 days after which the term "embryo" is used. Both would apply perfectly well to the point I was making.
If the incarnation dignifies human life from conception on through early embryonic development in a way that compels us, morally and legislatively, to recognize these stages of development as "fully human," this is deeply problematic for what it means in terms of rights and transgressions of rights, even within a relatively homogeneous religious society that accepts the theological premise. It may create more problems than it solves.
Justin, the term "fertilized egg" best described the conditions from conception to the early embryonic state over the first 5-7 days after which the term "embryo" is used. Both would apply perfectly well to the point I was making.
If the incarnation dignifies human life from conception on through early embryonic development in a way that compels us, morally and legislatively, to recognize these stages of development as "fully human," this is deeply problematic for what it means in terms of rights and transgressions of rights, even within a relatively homogeneous religious society that accepts the theological premise. It may create more problems than it solves.