“Why don’t the Christians make a Christian argument?” the Jewish bioethicist demanded. “Why do they only make philosophical arguments? Are they ashamed of being Christian?”
This challenge was issued after a debate on abortion at Princeton. I listed with growing curiosity (and alarm) as I heard it recounted at a recent gathering during the annual meeting of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities. I imagine that the Christian panelists established that the human embryo is a moral person entitled to human rights, and rightly condemned abortion as a violation of the dignity of the human person.
This is familiar territory for me. After all, I spent years as an attorney making just this sort of philosophical and legal argument in the public square. Theological concerns were marginalized to the church and Christian undergraduate audiences. This reflects the influence of John Rawls, the political philosopher who laid the groundwork for political discussions being held on supposedly ‘neutral’ or public terms.
Rawls’ view is that in a liberal democracy, the popular consensus (consensus populi) should form the political basis of discussions and decisions. Public reason requires that arguments must be made in terms that are accessible to everyone. Now, carefully read this: Rawls wants us to offer reasons that we reasonably think that other equally reasonable people (religious or not) would find to be rational reasons. Religious motivation is not excluded, but religious reasoning is. A citizen whose “comprehensive doctrine” is religious must be able to defend their views with “public” arguments, that is, not based on religious reasons. Thus, we have a legitimate concern that this kind of demand excludes those whose “comprehensive doctrine” is religious. As a Christian, I cannot run two operating systems in tandem (and my computer does not do it very well, either), one for my “true” religious self, and the other for my “public” self. If my religious beliefs are genuinely comprehensive, that kind of compartmentalization is schizophrenic or disingenuous.
There is a “push-me/pull-me” dynamic afoot. Christians have been careful to use arguments in the public square that appeal on grounds other than a belief in the authority of the Bible. We believe these arguments to be valid, even if expressed in non-theological terms. Some would call this the use of natural law reasoning. This might mean, for example, using phrases such as “human dignity” and “respect for the human person,” rather than “sanctity of human life” or “being made in the image of God.” Yet, when we use those terms, we are often accused, as my friend Ben Mitchell experienced, of trying to “smuggle in” theistic assumptions. As if, in the info-voracious world of Google, any of us could hide our Christian connections, even if we wished to!
Could it be that something else is at work? On the one hand, by insisting upon secular reasons and “neutral” sources, the Rawlsian secularists have privileged themselves with the hegemonic position of deciding which viewpoints merit a public hearing. Religious perspectives are sequestered in the world of “private faith.” On the other hand, it could be that a Christian moral perspective, in whatever form, makes them uneasy. The demand for neutrality may disguise a wish to silence reminders of a guilty conscience.
Regardless of the reasons, the challenge remains. Where do Christians stand in the public discourse on bioethics? Is it mandatory that our arguments be couched in philosophical terms which more closely resemble neutral, public reasons? Or, should we take the Jewish bioethicist’s challenge to “make a Christian argument”? (Although she is outspoken about her beliefs, I suspect it costs her little, as her conclusions nicely mirror those of most secular bioethicists.)
Let me respond to her challenge in a different way. The problem is not that Christian philosophers are ashamed of being Christian. They are doing their job: philosophy. The gap is the noticeable paucity of Christian theologians joining the bioethics conversation, which is their job. While there is a richer body of Catholic moral theological reflection, the evangelical theological corpus is modest. This relative neglect, in comparison with other foci of theological studies, certainly affects what the evangelical church counts as significant. John Wyatt, Professor of Ethics & Perinatology at University College London, commented that “modern evangelical Christians tend to have a weak theology of creation and a weak theology of eschatology and both of these are of foundational importance for bioethics.”[1] The thin ranks of evangelical theologians reflecting bioethically needs a deeper bench. Kathy McReynold’s essay in this issue of Dignitas is an example of doing this kind of moral theology.
CBHD will be unveiling a series of roundtable theological discussions on these and other questions. From these, we anticipate gleaning important theological insights in foundational bioethics concerns. The body of scholarly work will be expanded, and, we hope, more Christian theologians will accept the invitation to participate in conferences and unashamedly “make Christian arguments.”
[1] “Interview with Professor John Wyatt.” http://www.kingsdivinity.org/ theological-articles/interview-with-professor-john-wyatt.
Paige Comstock Cunningham, "From the Director's Desk,” Dignitas 17, no. 3&4 (2010): 1, 12.
