Journeyman
A Journal for the Inquiring Christian

Vol. 1, No. 1, September 2001 The Month Overview: Bush's stem cell s decision was better than I expected. The traditional family continues its decline. Florida may continue its ban on homosexual adoption. Back to school. In this issue. by Greg Krehbiel Review and comment on August Bush's stem cell research decision seemed to be a reasoned decision that balances several competing goals. I think that I would have put federal research dollars into other areas, like research on cells from umbilical cords. But there was considerable pressure to allow this research, and for good reason: scientists say that research on embryonic stem cells offers a lot of promise and may lead to cures for some very horrible diseases. The first thing to notice about President Bush's decision is that he made a difficult moral statement that is not popular with the elite — or, if polls are to be believed, with the majority of Americans (who are dragged hither and yon by the media hooks in their noses). Bush made a moral case against the destruction of human embryos, and that is a very good thing. While Bush's policy does not sanction the destruction of embryos, it is still subject to a very serious charge. Since Bush will allow research on stem cell lines that already exist, any resulting research will benefit from the "fruit of the poisoned tree." In other contexts that has been ruled unlawful — such as in the use of tainted evidence in a trial. The argument is that if you permit the system to benefit from unlawfully obtained fruit, you will encourage unlawful harvesting in the future. That may or may not be, and it seems to me that it is a pragmatic argument, not a moral argument. To take a less serious example, some states prohibit the taking of a deer that has been hit by a car for fear that people will intentionally run into deer and cause serious highway accidents. But other states allow it. Arguments can be made both ways. "Look, the dear's already dead …." The decision weighs the possible effect on conduct against the certain loss of resources, and I don't think we can be dogmatic about about a pragmatic judgment, one way or the other. And so, in the midst of this moral ambiguity it is rather hard to tell those who are suffering from a horrible, debilitating disease, "Oh, I'm sorry, we can't pursue this very promising line of research because it might lead to future crimes." If a doctor had harvested the organs of a man recently executed — "hey, he's dead, why not put the corpse to use?" — and your son was dying on the operating table, would you prevent the doctor from using the dead man's liver to save your son's life? Sure, we don't want to encourage that sort of thing, but after all, the deed is done, and your son is dying .... So President Bush had to make a hard choice based on predictions about what might happen. He did not commit the U.S. government to the positive evil of destroying human life. Rather, he has clearly repudiated that, for which we should be thankful. But he has allowed research that might save life — at the risk of possibly causing more erosion in our respect for human dignity. It was a hard choice, and only time will tell if his calculated risk will pay off. But now you must read I. Shawn McElhinney's opinion piece on this issue to hear another view. U.S. Census figures show that the traditional family continues its decline. One particularly disturbing fact is that the divorce rate is slightly higher among born-again Christians. (Dr. Dobson laments this fact in his August 2001 article, The Family in Crisis, in Focus on the Family magazine.) It begs an explanation. What is it about born-again Christians that might contribute to a higher divorce rate? Is it a misguided understanding that Christians are "not under law" (and therefore can get away with immoral conduct)? Is it a faulty conclusion from being "new creatures in Christ" — i.e., they aren't responsible for what that other guy (their former self) did? Is it the emphasis on starting over with a clean slate? Or is it a matter of prizing self-fulfillment above duty? (E.g., I'll leave this church because "I'm not being fed.") Evangelical leaders need to take a long and hard look at this phenomenon. A federal judge has upheld Florida's ban on adoption by homosexuals. The judge said ''Plaintiffs have not asserted that they can demonstrate that homosexual families are equivalently stable, are able to provide proper gender identification or are no more socially stigmatizing than married heterosexual families." (emphasis supplied.) That is a key point. There's more to raising a kid than putting clothes on his back and food in his mouth. Part of parenting involves passing on certain social roles that … let's face it, we don't quite understand, and lacking that understanding it is reasonable for the state not to experiment at the possible expense of children. It seems that children are better off in families with a father and a mother. But what about the "rights" of the homosexual who wants to adopt? Sorry, there is no "right" to adopt. The state has to set standards to ensure that the adopting parents are suited to raise the child in a healthy environment. In an adoption, the state creates a familial relationship for the benefit of the child, not for the fulfillment of the adults. Back to School. After a distinguished career in homeschooling, my son recently started 9th grade in a fine Catholic high school. In preparation for this new experience I've been giving him advice — advice that I suspect I would have rejected when I was his age. Stuff like "do your homework" (class is much more pleasant when you're prepared), "be respectful to the teachers," "attend school events" (concerts, games and so forth), "dress well" (fortunately the school has a dress code), "be organized," and "you'll never regret having worked hard in school, but you will always regret the time you wasted goofing off." Unfortunately, there is a kind of adult who would ask me, "How did you feel about those things when you were in high school?," as if the perspective of a dumb kid is the proper measure of how I should behave as a parent! Of course the "dumb kid" I'm referring to is me in high school, not my son. He has learned from some of my mistakes and is a better man than I was at his age. And that's the way it ought to be. My son is following me on the trail of life. Is he supposed to stumble on the same rocks, or fall prey to the same poisonous snakes? Of course not. But this is how many of my peers raise their children. (God help them — and us!) It's all too common, sometimes expressed a little more casually thus: "Your parents didn't like your music either." Yes. And you know what? They were right. Some music does sound like trash cans falling down stairs, and it turns out to be bad for you. No, it really is bad for you. Years ago I taught my son the Lesson of the Bene Gesserit: learn from the past. Other parents seem to be caught in their own adolescence, and all too willing to doom their children to make their mistakes all over again. My interlocutor objects: "When you were in high school, what did you think of the kids who followed the kind of advice you're giving your son?" I didn't like them, of course. "Ah, see!" they sneer. But no, my never-got-over-the-sixties friend, you're missing the point. I didn't like them for bad reasons — mostly envy and sloth. My peers who followed the advice I'm giving my son are far better off today because of it, and that's why I want my son to imitate them. The prerequisite for this kind of parenting is the willingness to step out of one's own life and measure it against an objective moral standard — even if that means accusing yourself of sin — and then taking corrective action. In other words, it means following Jesus' call to a life of repentance. Could it be that the parents who condemn their children to teenage mediocrity haven't yet repented of their own adolescent foolishness? In this issue I recap and expand an article on Catholic Presbyterians that I wrote for a sample version of Journeyman. A Reformed friend hopes to write a response for a future issue. Stay tuned. Jeff Culbreath gives us an interesting perspective on a Christian view of work. Yes, Virginia, Christianity is more than clapping your hands and going to Bible study. Steven Badal reviews and comments on the age of Digital Catholics. Can Christian use this medium to their advantage How does it differ from TV? I've already mentioned I. Shawn McElhinney's opinion piece on President Bush and his stem cell research decision. Finally, I review Philip Pullman's trilogy, His Dark Materials. This is not one for the kids.