(A statement received as information by the Eighth General
Convention of The American Lutheran Church by action GC76.9.34 and
transmitted to the member congregations of The American Lutheran
Church as a statement worthy of study by their members.)
We confess that God wills the creation, preservation,
reconciliation, and redemption of human life. Such life derives its
value from his loving purpose, and is held by us as a trust for
which we must give account. God's creating, preserving, judging,
reconciling, and redeeming activity is expressed in nature as well
as in history, as new life is brought into existence and as men and
women work to prevent the destruction of human life. This
understanding of God's intentions for human life provides a
perspective which informs us that it is better to give, share, and
preserve life than to take it away.
In order to delineate the meaning of the will of God for human
life, however, we are required to identify not merely the
conditions for physical existence but those conditions which
contribute to human fulfillment. We therefore include among the
purposes of God the following: sustaining and improving physical
and mental health; encouraging relationships that nurture hope,
trust, and love; and providing sufficient material goods to enable
individuals to develop more fully their capacities to initiate, to
respond, and to achieve. Conditions transcending physical existence
are necessary if human life is to be meaningful, though physical
existence is a prerequisite for the realization of other
values.
This perspective on human life has its foundation in the Bible.
Throughout the Old Testament, human life is always viewed in terms
of relationships. A person's identity is not developed in isolation
but in relation to the family, the clan, and, most importantly, the
covenant community. This is frequently expressed in the biblical
concept of "corporate personality."
Thus an individual's righteousness builds up the covenant
community and his or her disloyalty tears it down. Individuality
and personal responsibility are closely linked to the welfare of
the society as a whole. Within this context, human life is
understood as a gift of God and a blessing. Human fulfillment is
perceived as a state of existence in which each person lives in
harmony with God and with the other members of the community. The
wholeness of the "good life" can be summed up in the concept
shalom, a word meaning "peace," "completeness," and "well
being."
In the New Testament the dimension of "eternal life" comes to
the fore. The meaning of "eternal" relates less to unending time
than to the quality of life for those properly related to God and
to the neighbor. An individual s life belongs not only to that
person but also to Jesus Christ and God. Believers receive "eternal
life" not only as a future possibility; it is a reality that is
present here and now. To describe human life as "eternal,"
therefore, means to ascribe to it an extraordinarily high value,
and we affirm this attitude in all of our suggestions for the
direction of public policy which bear upon the value of human
life.
This biblically informed perspective provides that vision of
reality which shapes our understanding of ourselves, our neighbors,
and our world. That vision compels our bold acknowledgment of God
as the source and sustainer of life. Our lives, indeed, all of
life, are radically dependent upon God and, as ordained by him,
continue in radical interdependence with one another. These human
communities mesh with one another in the simple family of humanity.
The human family is bound to the world of nature as part of the
total family of creation. Again we affirm our dependence upon God,
the creator and preserver of all that exists, and we affirm our
interdependent relationship with all forms of life and matter, both
organic and inorganic.
This vision comes to clear focus in the person and work of Jesus
Christ, for it is through him that we experience and understand
most fully the love of God. Through him we become profoundly
sensitive to those in our midst who are oppressed and weak and
poor, to those whom the Old Testament identified as "the widow, the
orphan, and the stranger." This far-reaching love is expressed in
meeting the deepest needs of the neighbor, and while it gives
direction to our moral decision making, it does not resolve in
advance the ambiguities of particular situations. Christian love
exhibits a persistent bias for the preservation rather than the
destruction of life. In addition, it insists that the weak and the
helpless receive special care and protection. It also suggests that
moral values such as trust, hope, freedom, and justice must be
taken into account if the purposes of God for human life are not to
be denied. The evangelist John also reminds us that the voluntary
giving of one's life for others may be the highest expression of
that love which is a central concern of the New Testament
witness.
It is with this biblical vision and this Christian perspective
that we must approach every problem bearing upon the value of human
life. In addition to maintaining this vision, however, we must
attempt to elaborate an ethical stance which will allow us to deal
more explicitly with moral issues in a variety of contexts. In
providing this basic counsel to the church, we choose to emphasize
the language of "values" rather than the language of "rights." Such
a choice permits us to scrutinize the implications and possible
consequences of alternative courses of action. We will be able to
define problems in terms of conflicting moral claims, and we will
be able to make moral judgments by appealing to one or another
notion of individual, social, or cosmic well-being. This approach
keeps us aware of the complexity of moral decision making, which
not only requires choices between good and evil but a determination
of what positive values we are willing to sacrifice for other
values.
When we examine the current problems that require us to define
what we mean by "the value of human life," we discover three major
areas within which the issues may be grouped: 1. the relation of
humanity to the world of nature; 2. the increasing gap between the
rich and the poor; and 3. the ethical issues involved in human
control over life and death.
I. Humanity and Its Relation to the World of
Nature
For the foreseeable future the ecological facts of life
are grim. The survival of human life is integrally tied to the
complex web of biological processes that sustain all life. We are
compelled to admit that, on balance, human beings have been doing
precisely those things which are ecologically destructive, and that
they have thus threatened the most fundamental requisite of human
existence.
Although we are aware of the danger of isolating any single
cultural influence as most important in the shaping of human
attitudes and behavior toward the environment, we nevertheless
acknowledge the special role of modern technology, a Western
phenomenon supported by Judaeo-Christian religious beliefs. We
further note the strong tendency in the history of Christian
thought and piety to pit humanity against nature and to assert
humanity's mastery over nature. Biblical support has frequently
been claimed for this tendency, but it probably derives at least as
much from modern secular thought. Whatever their sources, those
dichotomies which assume an antagonistic relationship between
humanity and nature are outmoded in their usefulness and should be
replaced.
The Bible itself offers a corrective to this distorted emphasis.
In the Genesis creation accounts, human beings are placed above the
rest of creation, but their position entails a specific
responsibility. They are set apart by God to be his
representatives, mediators between God and the rest of creation.
Their role is to be stewards. The "dominion" which is given
humankind in the first chapter of Genesis is not domination but the
obligation to care for and preserve the created order. Similarly
the second chapter of Genesis suggests that God placed human beings
in the garden to "till and keep it." The authority given over the
animals of the earth carried with it responsibility. When humanity
misuses its authority, the rest of creation suffers as well.
Genesis chapters three through eleven remind us that the broken
relationship between God and human beings inevitably affects the
rest of the created order.
The biblical record goes on to speak of God's action in calling
and redeeming a people and setting them apart as his "holy nation."
Those making up this covenant community were summoned to live in
close relationship to God and to each other (Exodus 19:3-6). Their
manner of life was to serve as a "light to the nations," who in
turn would become a blessing to others (Isaiah 42:5-9; Genesis
12:1-3). Various passages of Scripture (Isaiah 2:4; 11:6-9; Joel
3:18; Amos 9:13-15) set forth a vision of the new creation as a
time when all will recognize the implications of their relationship
to God: warfare will come to an end; harmony will be restored
between human beings and other living creatures; and all of nature
will be restored. This vision of the end time receives powerful
expression in the New Testament as well (Romans 8:22-23; 1
Corinthians 15:21-28; Colossians 1:19-20; Revelation 21:1-4;
22:1-5) where the role of Christ in bringing in the future Kingdom
of God is stressed.
From a biblical perspective, therefore, any exclusively
anthropocentric view of life is inadequate. Such simple
"human-centeredness" must be enlarged to include a "biocentric" and
even a "cosmocentric" emphasis. Our perception of this reality is
of crucial importance. As we seek to develop an ethic which will
delineate the value of human life, we must be certain that our
ethic includes a concern for the way people relate to nature as
well as to each other, for God s purposes in creation and humanity
encompass the universe as well as humanity.
II. The Gap Between the Rich and the Poor
The historical development of human societies has
frequently been distinguished by the widening or the narrowing of
the economic gaps between various social groups. Those societies
which survived were those in which these gaps were narrowed; those
societies in which these gaps widened were wrenched apart by
internal contradictions. In recent years there has been an almost
universal hope that the ending of the colonial period would bring
about a drawing-together of people from the former colonizing and
colonized nations. The high economic growth rate of the more
developed countries was viewed by many as a kind of equalization
process which would benefit the less developed countries and
contribute to the desired reconciliation. These expectations have
proved illusory. Continuing on our present course, we will have
little chance to reduce these grave economic inequalities in the
foreseeable future. During the past 20 years, for example, the
average increase in per capita income in the underdeveloped
countries has been less than $1 per year. In 1970 the gap between
the average per capita income in developed and developing countries
was approximately $2,200; by 1980, according to present estimates,
that figure will be $3,220. Furthermore, even within countries
where economic development has been relatively successful, it has
often had no effect on the very poor of those societies.
Experience has shown us that economic growth does not inevitably
promote social justice. It is true that an increase in economic
production can make available a larger quantity of goods. A just
distribution of those goods, however, requires an acceptance of
basic egalitarian values which assumes concrete form in
institutional reforms related to property rights, education
availability, income distribution, and political power. The view
that increased output will filter down to the poor is held by some
to be out-dated laissez-faire economics and others to be deliberate
deception by those in positions of power.
We are also much more aware now than we were a decade ago that
we live in a world of scarcity. Simply stated, because our world is
finite, growth of human population and industrialization as we have
known it during the last century cannot continue indefinitely. We
have consequently become aware of the important challenge now
facing humankind, for we must now decide on the ethical basis for
making the trade-offs which must be made in a limited world where
it is not possible to maximize everything for everyone. The
prophetic words addressed to ancient Israel have new application in
our day. Faithfulness to God requires justice for the poor (Amos
2:6-8; 3:10; 4:1; 5:7-12; Isaiah 5:8-10; 10:1-3), and without such
justice our worship is a mere mockery and unacceptable to God (Amos
5:21-24; Isaiah 1:10-17; Jeremiah 7:1-26). A faithful response to
God's redemptive love directs us to meet our neighbor's most basic
needs. The New Testament view is set forth sharply in the Letter of
James:
If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled,"
without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it
profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead (James
2:15-17).
There is solid biblical foundation, therefore, for suggesting as
a criterion for the distribution of basic resources a definition of
social justice which incorporates the principle of "to each
according to his or her need."
Considerations of equity as well as social justice compel us to
examine seriously our present process of allocating global
resources. We in the economically developed nations-some would say
over-developed nations-must ask whether we do not need to slow down
our per capita consumption of finite resources. This is required if
essential resources for development are to be made available to the
hungry billions who still must find a way out of poverty. A
frequently quoted statistic is that the United States, having
approximately 6 percent of the world's population, uses at least 40
percent of the nonrenewable resources produced in the world each
year. In a lifetime each American uses enough resources to sustain
50 persons living in India, and it is estimated that if we continue
our increasing standard of living, we shall require by 1980 (with
about 5 percent of the world's population) upwards of 55 percent of
the world's nonrenewable resources each year. If we take seriously
the value of all human life, such a gap between rich and poor
cannot be allowed to continue, and necessary change must begin
now.
III. Human Control of Life and Death
Many of the moral dilemmas related to the control of life
and death have emerged because of contemporary developments in the
life sciences and technology. We are acquiring unprecedented power
to control the capacities and activities of human beings by direct
intervention or manipulation of bodies and minds. Organ
transplantation, prenatal diagnosis of genetic defects,
fertilization and fetal development outside the human body,
experimentation on fetuses, genetic engineering, and electrical
stimulation of the brain are only a few of the developing practices
that raise profound social and moral questions. Sophisticated
technological equipment allows us to prolong life and forestall
death indeterminately. This capability has introduced new moral
perplexities for physicians and families of dying patients
concerning the proper definition of death and the care appropriate
for the dying. The moral issues surrounding euthanasia and suicide
are being raised in a new context; articulate spokespersons are
asking whether it is possible to speak of the right of the dying to
death, just as we speak of the right of the living to life. The
practice of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment from
defective newborn babies is another area which forces us to ask the
question of whether and how consideration of "quality of life"
should enter into decisions about sustaining human life.
Just as the biological revolution has increased our capabilities
for medical modification of human beings, so also the social
revolution has heightened our consciousness of the ethical
dimensions of routine medical decisions in existing systems of
health care. We cannot discuss the value of human life without
considering as an issue of social justice the right of equal access
to health care and the basic values at stake in defining health and
illness. This growing sensitivity has resulted in an increasing
concern for patients' rights and for informed consent in human
experimentation. No longer can we ignore questions related to these
and other scientific, technological, and social developments
bearing upon health care in this country. We need a basic ethical
framework within which the principles governing these seemingly
diverse issues can be delineated in relationship to each other.
To understand the full scope of our task, however, we must not
limit our focus to the effects of these developments in our country
or even in western industrialized societies. Indeed, some of the
most profound effects are worldwide, as the present crisis of
population growth illustrates. There is little doubt that our
increased capacity to forestall death has brought about this
crisis. The crisis threatens the future of humankind, the whole
structure of social life as we know it, and the survival of the
delicate web of life we call the ecosystem. The population of the
world is expected to double within the next 35 years. Moreover, the
severe problems caused by population growth will be felt most
keenly in the poorer nations, where that growth is most rapid and
where two-thirds of the world's people live. It is in this
connection that the presumptive right of individuals in procreation
is being widely questioned. The moral issues involved in revising
this traditional value are many and complex. How are we to
adjudicate, for example, between the right of a married couple to
privacy in their sexual relationships and to their choice of use of
contraceptives, and the right of the community to limit the number
of children they are permitted to procreate?
From a more comprehensive perspective, we can recognize that
even a problem as massive as population growth is interrelated with
other pressing global political, social, and economic problems.
Attempts to solve any of these global crises in isolation have
proven to be inadequate and often at the expense of the others.
Because of the interdependence of these problems, our long range
efforts must be oriented toward the emergence of a global human
society which permits a systematic program of worldwide
development.
No problem related to the treatment of human life in a diversity
of contexts can be dealt with in isolation from other crucial
problems. There are basic moral issues in common in every decision
or policy that relates to human control over life and death. Our
Christian bias for life does not mean that life may never be taken,
but it does mean that our strong presumption must always be for
life against death, and that any instance in which life is taken
must be carefully scrutinized. Thus we state a clear moral
preference for peace against war, for rehabilitation against
capital punishment, for continuation of a pregnancy against
abortion. We also recognize that each of these problems requires a
more careful analysis than is possible in this general
statement.
Our attempt to view all of these issues within one basic ethical
framework, however, forces us to remain conscious of their
necessary interrelatedness. A strong moral commitment opposing
abortion, for example, cannot consistently be linked with a
cavalier attitude toward killing in warfare or capital punishment.
Every occasion in which human life is at stake requires thorough
discussion of such questions as just cause, just attitude, just
means, and just ends. We Christians dare not evade our role in that
discussion.
A Final Comment: A Call to Commitment
Beyond the issues we have explored in this statement are
other questions of a broader nature which we cannot even attempt to
answer now. Many of them involve the choosing of priorities. We
realize that our own future, as well as the future of human life on
this planet, will be radically affected by the priorities we
individually and collectively choose now and in the near future. We
do not expect that our statement will have made such choices any
easier, but we hope to have demonstrated the necessity of placing
all of these choices within an ethical framework which emphasizes
the value of human life within the larger community of life.
We are convinced that our failure to deal effectively with many
of the compelling issues involving life and death today is not so
much because we lack the ability but because we lack perspective,
knowledge, motivation, and determination. If we have prompted
Christians to ask not only what they should do, but why, we will
regard our work as having been worthwhile.
In full realization of the difficult choices with which we are
confronted, we affirm with new resolution our trust in God, our
creator, judge, and redeemer. We commit ourselves to nurturing an
awareness of our radical dependence upon God as the source and
sustainer and renewer of life. We also commit ourselves to
fostering an awareness of the necessary interdependence we have
with one another and with all creation. We pledge ourselves to act
in accord with this awareness and invite others to do the same.