Tell the Truth or Trump

Honesty, Integrity, and Missouri Amendment 2

In The Tragedy of Pudd’n’head Wilson, Mark Twain inserted observations on humanity through an almanac written by the title character. Of these, the one I remember best comes from the first chapter: “Tell the truth or trump — but get the trick.” Twain’s novel deals with crime, politics, family relationships, and human pride. The Tragedy shows how people swerve from the truth whenever fear, vanity, or desire for gain triumph over morality. The whole story becomes a sort of game, wherein numerous players cheat (trumping the truth with lies in order to cover theft, murder, or shameful pasts) in order to win.

In my mind, ethical opposition to Missouri Amendment 2 is bound by the truth while proponents continually insert “trumps” from many other decks. The opposition has played some powerful cards. How will we respond in this final week of campaigning by “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15)?

The other side has all the influence that thirty million dollars will buy. Led by massive donations from the Stowers and their related charities and businesses, they purchase huge blocks of advertising. They call upon a respected former Senator to speak for them and import entertainers to play upon our heart strings. Paid commercials parade the horrors of inherited disease and violent injuries before a caring electorate. Because of this huge financial inequity, if “Yes on 2” backers have their way, money trumps the truth.

We all know people with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, MS, MD, spinal cord injury, and other permanently disabling afflictions. The amendment waves hope for cures before our eyes. Those who crafted advertize Amendment 2 promise a panacea. The invite us to give Missouri biotech companies and state universities billions of dollars and years of time to invest in turning embryonic stem cells into medical miracles. If we or one of our loved ones suffers an ailment that has no cure, don’t we want to believe that a cure will be found? Who remains unmoved when watching the Michael J. Fox ads? Yet if sympathy for sufferers outweighs scientific evidence and Scriptural testimony, emotionalism trumps the truth.

Finally, supporters of Two practice subtle and direct deceit. When we closely examine the issue, we see that possible cures probably won’t happen for some time to come. So far, investigative medicine based upon Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) has yielded nothing. Yet supporters imply that successful research is just around the corner. In order to quash religious and moral objections, they say that the amendment is a safeguard against cloning human life. To lull pro-life Missourians to sleep, they have Mr. Danforth trumpet his own “pro-life” record while failing to clearly state that Amendment Two provides for the creation and destruction of millions of human embryos — people at the earliest stages of their lives.

Since supporters didn’t like current scientific definitions of cloning, they invented new ones and inserted these novelties into the text of our proposed constitutional amendment. Those who oppose them are branded “anti-science.” Call it word games or call it lying, if Amendment Two succeeds, then falsehood trumps the truth.

Some ignore the truth because of pity for sufferers. While this is shortsighted and wrong, we Christians understand and gently deal those whose ethical judgment is clouded by compassion. Others, especially those suffering or dreading the onset of crippling disease or injury show how they fear suffering and death more than they honor the truth by treating all human life as a sacred gift from God. While understandable, these fears expose sinful mankind’s collective self-centeredness. Seeking earthly strengthening, they refuse to allow the Lord’s power to be made perfect in their own weaknesses (see 2 Corinthians 12:9). Worst among all supporters, in my opinion, are those ignoring the truth because this amendment will be a tremendous cash cow for private biotech corporations and university research labs throughout the state Missouri.

Those who know (or even suspect) that embryos are living human beings sin against conscience and God when they practice or benefit from ESCR. Those who allow fears or finances to replace Scripture and good science risk going beyond even the consequences Paul describes in Romans 1. Embryonic stem cell researchers create or collect tiny human bodies, then destroy them. They dishonor their own bodies (1:24) by using them to carry out their life-ending experiments. Trying to make themselves “like God, (Genesis 3:5)” they generate and then destroy thousands of tiny, defenseless human beings. Certain that they know better than God, they worship and serve “the creature rather than the Creator,” exchanging “the truth about God for a lie. (Romans 1:25)”

Scripture and basic ethics call us to be honest. Among many the many details surrounding Amendment 2, there are a few simple truths that the other side misstates or ignores. First of all, opponents of the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative are not “anti-science.” We support good science, such as Adult Stem Cell Research, that doesn’t destroy embryonic humans and which already shows great promise. Second, we know that the Lord “is not God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:32)” Since His divine interest extends even into the womb, He thus must consider the unborn to be living (see Psalm 139:13; Jeremiah 1:5).

Third, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, (John 1:14)” He began human life as an embryo and passed through the subsequent stages of human development. He was fully human fetus, fully human infant, fully human toddler, fully human child, fully human adolescent, and fully human adult. In His ascended glory, He remains fully human. At no stage in the womb was He subhuman, unhuman, or pre-human. Neither is any other human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus anything other than fully human.

Fourth, while the Amendment says that it bans cloning, it actually enshrines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) in the state constitution. The United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) say of it, “SCNT is the scientific term for cloning. SCNT can be used for therapeutic or reproductive purposes, but the initial stage that combines an enucleated egg and a somatic cell nucleus is the same.” Either the NIH or Amendment 2 must be lying, because their definitions flatly contradict.

Finally, while we oppose ending one life in order to extend or enhance another, we who are truly “pro-life” are also “pro-people.” We are not unfeeling or unloving. Within the bounds of God’s Word and our abilities, we seek to love and serve those in need. We support ethical scientific research. We bring comfort to the suffering. We listen to, talk with, and pray for those in need.

In closing I ask you to remember that we are children of a “hands-on” God. During the Creation, He dug into the earth’s soil in order to form Adam (Genesis 2:7). He reached into the flesh of this first man and pulled out the material from which He formed Eve (2:21-22).

As a Redeemer God, He rescued Israel from Egypt “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deuteronomy 26:8)” He reaches into women’s wombs in order to knit together each growing and developing child (Psalm 139:13-16). Assuming human flesh through His Incarnation, the Son healed many by the mighty works of His hands (Mark 6:2). He then stretched out His hands and died for us (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19).

As His Father’s “Right Hand Man, (Acts 5:31)” the Son continues to guide us through this life. Likewise, the Father remains hands-on in a fallen world. Occasionally He directly works a miraculous intervention. More often, by His Holy Spirit, He acts through the hands of His dear people, moving us to reach out in our various vocations to love our neighbor as ourselves. He leads us to follow the apostolic example, taking up “the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left (1 Corinthians 6:7)” and being His caring, sharing, giving hands on earth for all in need.

Please join me in praying that God would help us “take the trick” in this election. Let your desire be for life to overcome lies and truth to conquer feelings, finances, and falsehoods. Also, ask God to keep the “trump cards” of violence and deceit out of the hearts and hands of pro-life voters and activists, that we might act as we believe. May He use our hands and hearts to take up pen, pencil, keyboard, ballot, purse, wallet, checkbook and any other godly means to protect human life at all its stages.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Amendment Two | Lutheran | Christian | vocation | pro-life | government | church and state | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR | church and state | Adult Stem Cell Research | ASCR | Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer | SCNT | science | resources | Stowers Institute | John Danforth | Michael J. Fox | Mark Twain | tell the truth or trump

And in This Corner

Lining Up Amendment Two’s Opposition

If you go to Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, you’ll find a long list of people who support the Missouri Amendment 2. But the more I search cyberspace, the more I find those who oppose this anti-life, pro-cloning, embryo-destroying proposed change to the Missouri Constitution.

What follows is an assortment of individuals, ad hoc organizations, and churches who find ample reason to defeat passage of this measure. If you’re already convinced that the so-called Stem Cell Initiative is wrong, maybe you’ll find something to help convince others to change their minds. If you’re wavering, I hope that these people (and others to whom they link) will persuade you to vote for life and against Two. And if you’re a backer of this proposal, I pray that you’ll approach these pages and videos with an open mind and be moved to reconsider.

First of all, the Issues, Etc. radio interview I mentioned previously has come to pass. “The Incarnation & Embryonic Stem Cell Research” is the first half of an archived hour in either WMA or MP3 formats. Here I focus on Christological reasons for opposing Amendment 2.

Missouri Right to Life not only works to end abortion in Missouri but also speaks to other vital issues, including this amendment. They also mention how another proposed change to our constitution, Amendment 3, also has “pro-abortion pitfalls.”

Wesley J. Smith writes at Secondhand Smoke and has spoken on the radio about the legal ramifications, the science, and the morality of Amendment 2. He covers the Michael J. Fox commercial and the media’s reaction, talks about the impact of egg harvesting upon poor women, and touches on other Amendment 2 issues. He also has many good articles about other aspects of the pro-life movement.

Pure Pedantry weighs in on one part of the disingenuous doublespeak cited and recited by Two-backers. He shows how some in the scientific community want to replace the hot-button word “cloning” with “somatic cell nuclear transfer” and other technical but confusing terms in public discourse.

Also on the linguistic front, Doug Edelman, cited in The American Daily, doesn’t mince words when he says, Missouri’s Stem Cell Amendment Is Deceptive Fraud. He uses one of my favorite Abe Lincoln quotes to illustrate the fact that renaming the cloning process doesn’t change what it is: “How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Using similar language, Dave F. of Stop the ACLU writes Missouri Cloning Bill: Dangerous and Deceptive.

The Anchoress has written quite a number of pro-life posts. Among her recent articles on Amendment 2, I recommend Adult Stem Cells: 72, Embryonic Stem Cells: 0 and Michael J. Fox Fighting for Bad Science.

If you have an hour to dedicate to an extended talk about the issue, you might want to view Stem Cell Speech on Golden Valley TV.

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online says 2 Bad for Amendment 2 as she evaluates Missouri’s place as “the latest Brave New World battleground.”

Although, in my mind, the Catholic League gets uncomfortably close to debating’s “Hitler Tactic” (demonize your opponent as a Nazi and shut down discussion) they still manage to make the point that if fetuses are living, then Missourians Are Asked to Ignore Nuremberg Code by supporters of Amendment 2.

Over the road trucker Road Knight parked his rig long enough to describe embryos as human beings and then cites a long list of afflictions now being treated by adult stem cell therapies as he makes the claim Missouri Amendment 2: Child Murder Initiative.

Blonde Sagacity clearly shows how the stem cell initiative supports cloning “outside the womb” and favorably cites the New York Times as she says, Human Cloning: Missouri Voters Being Duped.

Even the Great White North is looking in on our clone wars. Instead of our state remaining “Gateway to the West,” Rebecca Hagelin of Proud to Be Canadian writes of Missouri: Gateway to Human Cloning.

Missouri Voters Warned Against Deceptive ‘Stem Cell’ Amendment says Jim Brown of Agape Press as he studies the issues and cites work by the Family Research Council.

Of the Missouri Embryonic Stem Cell Initiative, Avoiding Evil invites you to listen to a message from his pastor.

Hang Right Politics has been busy in the life discussion for some time. Among their efforts, I recommend Missouri’s Amendment 2: Lifesaving cures or snake oil? Pt. 1.

Sister Toldjah examines the tangled web between the Missouri Senate race, the Michael J. Fox video, and the rest of the Amendment Two donnybrook with such posts as Missouri’s Jim Talent: Your Typical Heartless and Cruel Conservative and the Michael J. Fox Ad Controversy: One More on a Long List of Shameless Attempts by the Left to Stifle the Debate.

Since I’m now bringing up Fox’s video, I’ll point you again to Secondhand Smoke, specifically, Fox’s Tragedy Doesn’t Make His Statements About Embryonic Stem Cells True.

Carl Lundblad of the Law of Life Project weighs in with Thoughts on Michael J. Fox and Thomas Jefferson.

Then check out Kansas City’s own Little Miss Chatterbox. Dee writes My Radio Debut & Missouri's Amendment 2 Ads and completely pans the Fox effort while also expressing disappointment with the latest opposition ad.

Michael J. Fox Uses Parkinson’s For Politics! is the flat out (but seemingly undeniably true) accusation from Totally Joshness.

Among all these other responses to M. J. Fox, I also remind you of the recent letter I quoted from the Missouri Lutheran pastor and Parkinson’s patient who has A Dog in the Fight.

Twenty-five year old Missouri resident Valerie is Spoken For. She is also outspoken out about The TRUTH about the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative (Vote No on Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2).

While Initiative Is a Good Thing, the cloning initiative obviously isn’t. Instead, it can be called The Missouri Stem Cell Moneyfest.

In a similar vein, Trent Dougherty of X-Catholics writes MO Stem-Cell Update: Follow the Money.

Perhaps one of the most somber headlines comes courtesy of Women for Faith & Family. This article warns that Industrialized Human Cloning Looms.

Missouri Stem Cell Research Company Buying State Cloning Initiative is another hard look at the support money from the Stowers Institute that’s been pouring into the pro-2 campaign. It’s written by Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com.

And what of the Lutherans? Already back in August, Necessary Roughness was beginning to take a close look at Missouri Stem Cell Initiative: Amendment 2.

LCMS News Spot passed along this Observation of the Week: President Kieschnick Defends Life.

Of course, I’ve already listed a number of places to learn plenty more. But to save you hunting, here’s a summary beginning with my earlier column, Stem Cells and Clones. You can also scroll down to read a couple other posts on the initiative. Now, here are some previously noted resources involving Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), and the like:

A very good place to research the actual text of the amendment is at Missouri Roundtable for Life with their Word-By-Word Critique Of The So-Called “Missouri Stem Cell Research And Cures Initiative”.

Aardvark Alley wrote a special rebuttal of the amendment’s advertising being done by former Missouri Senator John Danforth in Knowing Jack About Stem Cells. Also at the Alley are two of the TV spots running against the amendment, The Truth about Amendment 2 and No MO 2.

Missourians Against Human Cloning also sponsors 2Tricky.org, a site specializing in analyzing the language of the amendment and of its supporters.

Lutherans for Life has the PDF handout The “Deceitful Tongue” of the Missouri Stem Cells Research and Cures Initiative.

Concerned Women for America published Missouri Stem-Cell Initiative Permits all Cloning.

The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod categorically opposes the initiative, as shown in the article Clearing the Confusion.

The Southern Baptist Convention resolved to oppose all science that “destroys human embryos.”

Focus on the Family has a number of articles on Cloning and Stem Cell Research.

Don’t neglect the fine work of the Vitae Caring Foundation and their special efforts to get out these Stem Cell Research Facts, including some excellent commercials.

And let us not forget Americans to Ban Cloning, Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, and National Right to Life.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Amendment Two | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures | government | church and state | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR | Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer | SCNT | science | resources

Feed Aggregator Annoys Readers

I just discovered that Everyfeed DOT com was asking for a password in order for its blog button to display. I apologize to anyone who received a password request when visiting Ask the Pastor. The offending link has been removed.

I know that I can sometimes irritate my readers well enough on my own, so I don’t need any help from outside sources.

A Bad Amendment

Editor of Local Paper Against Amendment 2

NOTE: The following copyrighted article was written by Gary Beissenherz, publisher and editor of The Concordian, the city newspaper of Concordia, Missouri. Since the paper is not online, I asked and received his permission to reprint in its entirety his editorial opposing Amendment 2. Please do not reproduce it without the consent of Gary Beissenherz and The Concordian.

State Sen. Bill Stouffer calls Amendment 2 “just plain bad law.” Missourians Against Human Cloning calls the amendment “confusing and misleading.” Missouri Roundtable For Life says, “This cloning initiative is perhaps the boldest attempt ever to hijack the legitimate processes, procedures, and functions of representative government in Missouri. Its basic mechanism is a language structure that is designed to defeat the casual reader in subsequent subsections.”

Robert F. Onder, M.D., J.D., Washington University School of Medicine, states, “As much as proponents may deny it, this initiative would create a constitutional right to do human cloning in the state of Missouri. Human cloning does not belong in our constitution. The initiative would also prevent the Legislature from restricting funding for human cloning and embryo research. In other words, the initiative would create a right to clone and kill human embryos, and it would require all of us to pay for it.”

Lutherans for Life says Amendment 2 legitimizes the cloning of human beings as a constitutional right and mandates the destruction of human beings so created.

Richard A. Chole, M.D., Ph.D., Washington University School of Medicine, says, “The proposed amendment would protect a process called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) in the Missouri state constitution. SCNT is the scientific term for cloning embryos. In the case of human SCNT, it results in a living human being at the embryonic stage.”

The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is a deceptive proposal with the real purpose of protecting human cloning, and opening the door to government funding of human cloning. It would lead to the exploitation of women and take resources away from proven research using adult stem cells. Consider some of the contradictions.

• While Section 2:1 says “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being,” Section 6:2 states, “‘Clone or attempt to clone’ means to implant in a uterus ... anything other than the product of fertilization....” Lutherans for Life explains, “Cloning takes place before implantation. Dolly the sheep was Dolly the sheep several days before she was implanted into a uterus. Saying that cloning is implanting is contrary to the universally accepted scientific definition of cloning. Implanting is one of the things you can do with a cloned human being, but it is not cloning. Since implantation is not allowed, embryos created by cloning must be destroyed.”

• Section 2:2 states, “No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.” But Section 6:11 states, “‘Solely for the purpose of stem cell research’ means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating infertility.” The truth, says Lutherans for Life, is that “as long as the production of blastocysts (human embryos) is not solely for the purpose of research — in other words, if they are also being produced to treat infertility — these embryos can be used for research.”

• Section 2:4 states, “No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research,” but Section 6:17 states, “‘Valuable consideration’ ... does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank....” This means payment for eggs could be outsourced to fertility clinics, which would become the middle man in the business of selling and buying eggs.

The amendment would change a number of other sections in the Missouri constitution, and the amendment’s ambiguous language would supersede medically accurate language already in legislation.

The entire amendment is on page 9 of this week’s Concordian [view complete text in PDF format from Missourians Against Human Cloning; wps]. Read it yourself so you can make an informed decision on Nov. 7. We don’t need this kind of language in our constitution.

Article © 2006, The Concordian, Concordia, Missouri and reproduced by permission. Links, photographs, and bracketed comments inserted by Walter P. Snyder.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures | government | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR | Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer | SCNT | Concordia

A Dog in the Fight

Reflections of a Lutheran Pastor Suffering from Parkinson’s

Contrary “opinions” from people like me might be rejected by supporters of Missouri Amendment 2. After all, I suffer from none of the afflictions they claim might be cured by experimentation upon the cells of human embryos. In matters of personal health, I have, as the saying goes, no “dog in the fight.” Yes, my mother suffers from some form of senile dementia — I know not if it’s Alzheimer’s Disease or something else — but she cannot fully speak for herself and I might be accused of putting words into her mouth.

With this in mind, I contacted a recently retired pastor from my area to see if he’d share his personal thoughts on embryonic stem cell research and the upcoming vote here in Missouri. Not only do I respect him as a man and as a wise “old” pastor, I know him as one who has battled Parkinson’s Disease for a number of years.

Actually, my first look at Michael J. Fox’s video supporting the McCaskill campaign and ESCR made me immediately think of this brother, so I wrote him, “I’m curious as a brother pastor, a friend who enjoys your personality and insight, a Christian, and a voter what your personal thoughts are on Amendment 2 and the arguments surrounding it from both sides.”

He replied as follows and graciously gave me permission to use his private thoughts in this most public forum of blogging:

I was going to give you the quick answer: Of course! I’m voting no on Amendment 2. Isn’t everyone? We even have the sign in our yard. Aren’t I the noble one? But then, what does it cost me? Slim chance of embryo stem cells doing me any good! They just want to do the research, and maybe some day ... besides they already have adult stem cells, placental cells.

But then, John Danforth, whose brother has ALS, writes in his book that the embryos they plan to use for research are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence, and that he cares more about his brother than about the clump of cells.

Is that microscopic group of cells a human being? Is Psalm 51:5 entirely clear on that? Psalm 139? Jer. 1? Etc., etc.? One could argue that they area kind of poetry and are outweighed by the serious life-and-death issues involved in finding cures for so many people.

On the other hand, if that tiny clump of cells is not a human being, at what point does it become one? Then it becomes a matter for anyone’s self-serving arbitrary determination.

How would I choose if it were a matter of sacrificing this tiny embryo for my quality of life? I a poor miserable sinner? I can know what is right but ... well, I sure hope I could do it. And today I affirm that I would! But wretched man that I am!

So these are my remarks for your brotherly consideration and whatever other use you may have for them.

God bless!

I hope you take to heart these words of a man who knows that he is simil iustus et peccator. I ask that you would appreciate this Christian’s ongoing struggle to submit himself to the will of God in difficult circumstances without expressing false humility, shameful bravado, or a sense of self-imposed martyrdom. And I invite you to pray for him and all others who patiently await deliverance from “this body of death (Romans 7:24)” that God would “sustain [them] to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:8)”

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Parkinson’s Disease | ALS | Alzheimer’s Disease | Michael J. Fox | Senator Danforth | John Danforth | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR

ATP on Internet Radio

The Theology of the Missouri Stem Cell Debate

I’ve been invited to be a guest on the Issues, Etc. radio program from KFUO-AM, the LCMS station in Saint Louis. I am supposed to come on at 3:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time today (Tuesday 24 October) to talk about theological, faith-based reasons for opposing Missouri Amendment 2. If you’d like to listen to the webcast, you can get to it from the main Issues page. If you miss the live feed, it should later be archived. Also, Wesley J. Smith of Secondhand Smoke is scheduled to be on a bit later, focusing on legal and politcal objections to this proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution.

Technorati Tags: Lutheran | confessional Lutheran | KFUO-AM | KFUO | Issues, Etc. | embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures | government | church and state | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR | Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer | SCNT

Understanding Proverbs

Q: Regarding the book of Proverbs, is this a divine or secular book in the Old Testament?

A: Thank you for writing. I believe that yours is the first question I’ve ever received from Kuwait.

Concerning Proverbs, I believe what Saint Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Since Paul grew up in Judaism and since the Jews of his time considered Proverbs to be part of “all Scripture,” he must have considered Proverbs to be “breathed out by God” (or inspired).

Just because Proverbs tends to be as much practical as it does theological shouldn’t cause us to deny its divine origins. Living a good life and diligently applying ourselves in our vocations is in line with God’s will for all people. Since He made us to be logical thinkers, we shouldn’t be surprised if He occasionally includes pragmatic secular advice in His Word.

Also, we shouldn’t forget that while much of Proverbs deals with mundane daily activities, its heart involves true wisdom. As Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” While many of Proverbs’ topics are secular, even these point out that God ultimately governs and organizes all human activities.

Christians further believe that our earthly vocations are intimately connected with our salvation. No activity is totally “secular,” since we believe that our entire lives are under divine guidance and protection.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Proverbs | sacred | secular | wisdom | fear of the Lord | vocation

Addressing the Clergy

Q: Is it correct to use “Pastor, Reverend John C. Doe” together?

A: While there are variations in style, some general rules apply. These are based more on English grammar than on theology. “Pastor” normally serves as a title or form of direct address. Therefore, instead of calling me “Mr. Walter Snyder,” the normal address would be “Pastor Walter Snyder.” In some churches, “Father” is used as the normal title for a parish clergyman. Additional ecclesiastical titles include “Bishop,” “Archbishop,” and the like.

“Reverend” is considered a “style.” It’s an adjective, used to describe the person in question. If you wish to follow strict English usage, you would speak of me as “The Reverend Walter Snyder.” The rules of grammar (although often broken) would frown upon calling me “Reverend Snyder.” You discover a parallel when referring to many public figures. For example, if a “Mrs. Mary Smith” happens to be your senator, you might speak about her as “The Honorable Mary Smith” or “The Honorable Mrs. Mary Smith.”

If you’re addressing a letter, you may send it to “The Reverend Walter Snyder” or even “The Reverend Pastor Walter Snyder.” Then, in the salutation and elsewhere you speak to me rather than about me, you would normally say, “Pastor Snyder.” If you were writing to a Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican priest instead of to me, the rules of grammar would have you use “Father” in place of “Pastor.” The political parallel would be that you would call your senator either “Senator Smith” or “Mrs. Smith” in direct address.

Therefore, according to good grammar, speaking directly to me and calling me “Reverend Snyder” would be the same as calling our fictitious senator “Honorable Smith.” Now as I said, the rules are often broken. However, if you wish to make a good first impression, it doesn’t hurt to do as you have done: Find out the best way of addressing someone and determine in advance which titles to use in what manner.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: clergy titles | Reverend | Pastor | Father | grammar | English grammar

Continuing the Missouri Clone Wars

If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest that you check out Knowing Jack About Stem Cells at Aardvark Alley. Focusing especially on the advertising supporting the Stem Cell Initiative — particularly the role of former Senator John C. Danforth — it complements my previous post Stem Cells and Clones and provides further links for those interested in becoming better informed about the political and theological issues surrounding Missouri Amendment 2.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures | government | church and state | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ESCR | Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer | SCNT

New Carnival at TheoMony

The husband and wife blog TheoMony hosts Lutheran Carnival XXXV, which includes an advance look at the upcoming anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation. Thank you, Mon and Kobra, for taking the time to put the carny together.

Technorati Tags: Lutheran Carnival | blog carnival | confessional Lutheran | Lutheran

Stem Cells and Clones

What’s the Matter with Missouri Amendment 2?

Q: If Christians claim to be pro-life and if stem cells promise cures for disease, why do many Christians oppose the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative on this November’s ballot?

A: Before responding, let’s quickly define “stem cells.” These are unspecialized “master cells” in the human body with the capability of growing into any of the body’s 200+ different specialized cells. This proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution focuses mainly on “embryonic” stem cells — that is, cells harvested in the first few days after conception (or of cloning). All people — including adults — have stem cells. So do placentas and so does umbilical cord blood.

Regarding the opposition to Amendment 2 and related laws around the country, I can’t answer for all Christians, not even all Lutherans. Many who claim to be followers of Christ support this initiative; I certainly can’t speak for them. Among opponents, a variety of reasons exist; I’ll focus mainly upon my own, since I know them best.

The hymn “O God, Whose Will Is Life and Good” prays for those working in health care. The second stanza asks God to “Make strong their hands and hearts and wills to drive disease afar, to strive against the body’s ills and wage your healing war.” At first glance, the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative sounds like it will aid God in His “healing war.”

However, I believe that embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) stems from a poor understanding of the nature of God and of the human beings He created. Many Christians believe that life begins at conception. The initiative allows scientists to begin conceiving and growing new lives in the lab and then, after only a few days, to halt their growth (that is, kill them) by harvesting their cells in attempts to stave off disease or repair damage to fully grown human beings.

Regarding procreation, Scripture calls children blessings and gifts from God. Solomon said, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalm 127:3)” Throughout the Bible, the inability to have children was considered a problem — perhaps even a punishment from God. The accounts of Hannah, Sarah, Jacob’s wives, or Elizabeth can remind us just how far we’ve moved from desiring children accepting each and every child with joy.

Instead, some people act almost like “baby factories.” They run cost analyses (“Can we afford a baby?”). They try to fit them in with other additions and changes (“Let’s wait until you finish your degree,” or, “Once this one is in preschool, we’ll have another.”). Children may be treated like commodities as prospective parents plan whether, when, and how many.

If people consider themselves as originators and “manufacturers” of the next generation of lives, they may forget that God begins and sustains the process: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:14)” God notices each and every conception as He did that of the prophet Jeremiah, of whom the Lord said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (1:5)” See how He claims full responsibility even for pre-born life.

If we treat our offspring like manufactured items, would it seem unusual to think of ourselves in the same manner? If we break down, we can look for “spare parts.” Unfortunately (?) no factory manufactures new brain cells for Alzheimer’s victims or Parkinson’s sufferers. No plant constructs new organs or limbs to replace those taken by accident or by cancer. Proponents of ESCR seem to promise, “Give us enough time and lots of money and we’ll give you the ability to grow new limbs, rebuild damaged or defective organs, and replace faulty brain cells.”

At what spiritual cost does this come? If all human life is divinely originated, then no human life is too small or insignificant to escape God’s concern. You can use the scientific terms, but whether you call it an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst, or a fetus, how can you escape calling it a baby, a child, and a human being? Have we departed so far from God that we willingly would begin and then sacrifice new lives in the laboratory in order to manufacture spare parts for ourselves?

As our Redeemer, God is also one of us. In His incarnation in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the eternal Son of God assumed human flesh, not by ordinary sexual relations but by a divine miracle. From the time the Son lived as a single cell in Mary’s womb, during those first few days when was “only” a mass of stem cells, and as He slowly took the form we recognize as a baby, He was also the Son of Man.

Before conception, the Son was fully, truly, one hundred percent God. After conception — indeed, at the very point of conception and onward forevermore — He also was, is, and will remain fully, truly, one hundred percent human. Scripture speaks of no “God-embryo” or “God-fetus”; God’s Word knows only God, man, and the God-man Jesus Christ. He was “pre-human” only while He was pre-conception. Why, then do so many try to divide mortal life into “pre-human” and “human” existence? Why classify an unborn life as “stem cells” or “embryo” or “fetus” or “spare parts” until late-term pregnancy or birth?

Space prevents detailing all my objections to Amendment 2 but I’d like to touch on a few more points. As noted above, all people have stem cells. More research has been done and more prospective cures have been discovered with adult than with embryonic cells. For instance, bone marrow transplants introduce new stem cells into recipients’ bodies, where they become various types of blood cells needed for survival. This initiative leads us away from existing science.

The amendment only bans cloning by redefining the word. The American Heritage Dictionary says a clone is “A cell, group of cells, or organism that are descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor.” The genetic copies mentioned in Amendment 2 are clones. The initiative weasels out of this mess by saying that a clone isn’t really a clone until it’s implanted in a mother’s uterus.

In my estimation, Amendment 2 promotes bad theology, shoddy science, questionable ethics, and poor law. Nothing convinces me that the citizens of our state will profit more than will the bio-research companies as they use embryonic tissue to manipulate adult hopes and fears in order to conduct experiments upon the earliest possessors of human life.

The Missouri Roundtable for Life provides A Word-By-Word Critique Of The So-Called “Missouri Stem Cell Research And Cures Initiative”. It notes that the amendment is badly written law. Roughly half the length of the entire U. S. Constitution, the amendment lists forty-five different sections of the Missouri Constitution it will change, replace, or delete. Shouldn’t Missouri citizens consider Amendment 2 an overly broad alteration of our state’s laws? This same analysis also points out the potential for exploiting women for the sake of their eggs and details other potential legal loopholes and possible consequences should this amendment become law.

For additional information about and objections to Amendment 2, I suggest visiting Missourians Against Human Cloning. You may also follow related links from Lutherans for Life. LFL also has The “Deceitful Tongue” of the Missouri Stem Cells Research and Cures Initiative, a brief PDF file that can be printed as a bulletin insert or political handout. Concerned Women for America provides the article Missouri Stem-Cell Initiative Permits all Cloning, which also links to related topics. Additional commentary also appears regularly courtesy of the Pro-Life Blogs feed aggregator.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cells | cloning | Missouri | Amendment 2 | Lutheran | Christian | pro-life | Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures | fetus | foetus | zygote | blastocyst | embryo | government | church and state | conception | birth | Christ | Jesus | incarnation | Son of God | Son of Man

Burial Disagreement Brings Family Discord

Q: My parents have been in their graves for more than 20 years. Both were lifelong Lutherans. My brother-in-law has died recently, and been cremated. My sister wishes to bury his ashes in the plot where my parents are buried. Her reason is to save money. My brother-in-law was not a Christian. I understand that his ashes would be buried either between or on top of one of the graves.

Consenting to this troubles me and I am not sure why. If I refuse to write a letter of agreement to allow this, I am going against four older siblings who have already agreed. Is there an official Lutheran position on the practice of “double burials” or “over and under burials”?

A: I don’t envy the position in which you find yourself. Death and burial have torn apart many families who previously were close-knit. As your question reminds us, distribution of the estate isn’t always the primary reason for post mortem family fights. Varying understandings of what is the “right” burial practice may get mixed up with differences in faith.

Preserving our memories isn’t always congruent with living in the present or rising into eternity. Pastors hear all sorts of requests for special music, memorials, or rituals at funerals. At times, these may collide with the solemn yet joyful nature of a Christian funeral service. We sometimes come off as “uncaring” or “unfeeling” because we must deny some of these requests in order to be faithful to Christ. At other times, while family choices aren’t the best testimonies to the Christian Faith and the beliefs of the departed, pastors allow them to stand without argument because what’s “better” theologically isn’t “best” in our ministry to a grieving family.

While it might make planning and conducting funerals easier, there’s never been a blanket policy for all of Lutheranism. Generally, we’ve done as have most churches in Christendom, opting for decency and good order and occasionally adapting some of our practices to suit local customs and practices. Even those congregations having strict written burial policies often allow some leeway for peculiar circumstances.

For instance, in low-lying coastal areas with groundwater near the surface, underground burials are impractical, since the coffins might float their way upwards. In such places, most people utilize above ground crypts and mausoleums. Many military cemeteries, because of space restrictions, only allow one plot for husband and wife. The first one to die is buried; when the second passes away, the grave is opened and the second coffin placed respectfully upon the first.

In addition, debate continues among Lutherans and other Christians over cremation. Some Lutheran cemeteries won’t allow the burial or scattering of ashes while others have specially dedicated areas to either house the urns above ground or bury them in the soil.

Multiple burials of themselves aren’t frowned upon, if space or financial circumstances warrant such actions. From what I’ve read, parts of Europe end up with numerous generations layered in their cemeteries. Markers are kept for a while, then removed and changed as the newer people are placed in the site. Many of these latter burials are not even related to those previously buried. While it’s not something to which most of us in the United States are accustomed, many European churches follow this practice without reservation, so long as they are allowed to bury their dead with dignity and in a Christian manner.

You don’t mention a few things. First of all, why, besides the financial reasons, does your sister want your brother-in-law to be buried with your parents? I’ve seen children interred beside or atop parents’ graves. However, unless your sister also plans to be buried above or between your parents, why would she leave your brother-in-law in such a place? Is this at least partially responsible for your conflicted feelings?

Also, is this a Christian cemetery or is it owned by private parties or a governmental entity? I ask because many Christian churches don’t allow the burial of manifest non-Christians in their cemeteries. They may have a dedicated area just outside the main grounds where those who gave no evidence of the faith can be buried near believing relatives. Probably most of those interred in these sites were suicides, since many believed that every person who killed himself was forever condemned. However, anyone else not deemed suitable for the hallowed ground could also end up there.

His faith (or lack thereof) may be a large — even the primary — reason why consenting is so difficult. You sound like someone who wants to live as a child of God and not do anything contrary to His will. Could you be troubled because you see a tremendous contrast between the faith of your parents and that of your brother-in-law? Could the mechanics of the situation (a double-burial) be obscuring what you should examine with the eyes of faith (Christian and unbeliever lying together in the grave)?

I pray that you’ll be careful in your discussions and prayerfully make a decision with which both you and your siblings can live. Make sure that your disagreement — even if informed by God’s Word and in line with His will — doesn’t cause others to enter into sin. Take care in deciding that someone else is truly an unbeliever, since Christ warns, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:1-2)”

Be certain of your diagnosis of unbelief. Even if sure, your choosing to mention obvious differences in belief could throw gasoline on a smoldering fire. Your sister my not be comfortable looking too closely at her late husband’s lack of faith. She might feel guilty that she didn’t “try harder” to get him to believe. She may also may be struggling with her own faith as she tries to reconcile salvation through Christ alone with thoughts of Him judging her husband on the Last Day.

In his First Epistle, Saint Peter said, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (4:8)” He reflects similar thoughts from Proverbs 10:12 (“love covers all offenses”) and 17:9 (“Whoever covers an offense seeks love”). Sometimes, the most loving act is resisting a majority so they don’t continue in their sin and risk eternal condemnation. At other times, we show the greatest charity by keeping silence, knowing that the wrong done by others is much less that the pain we could cause by speaking.

How will you “keep loving” your family “earnestly”? What decision will cause the least discord, contribute to the truest peace, and bring the most blessing to your family? What decision most honors the God who loves you and the Savior who gave His life for you? Would your parents be more offended by being buried with an unbeliever or by knowing that their children were fighting bitterly? Remember that Christ lay in someone else’s tomb (see Matthew 27:59-60). As Isaiah prophesied would be done to God’s Suffering Servant, “they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death. (Isaiah 53:9)”

You must resolve in your own heart and mind how much it matters where or with whom our bodies sleep in death. Ashes, earth, and waters will all yield their dead and all believers will rise again. As you heard at their committals, you know the “sure and certain hope” with which your parents lived, in which they were buried, and by which they will rise. Focus on this hope and the Savior who is its source. Pray for His peace in Your life and ask Him to lead you to a decision which gives honor to Him while, if at all possible, also brings peace to your family.

NOTE: For a bit more on the burial of Christians and unbelievers, I invite you to read a previous post, Whose Funeral Do I Officiate?

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: death | religious differences | burial practices | Christian funerals | Lutheran | family dispute | lover covers all | love covers a multitude of sins | Christian charity | graves | mausoleums | cremation | resurrection | Last Judgment | Judgment Day | Christ | Jesus | family dynamics