Youth Bible Study Lessons > 1 Thesselonians

Reproductive Technology: Surrogate Motherhood

Jul 17th, 2009
by Anthony Delgado.

Pregnant CoupleSurrogacy has been practiced for thousands of years. In modern times there are specific moral concerns with the practice. If I were faced with my wife being a surrogate mother for another family, I could not be comfortable with it. Mothers are designed to connect with their children in ways which financial compensation or legal contracts just cannot take away. Aside from the effect surrogacy has on the mother, it also has an effect on Christ and the church which must be considered. In addition, the practice of surrogacy is baby selling, no matter how you look at it.

I would not be comfortable with my own wife being a surrogate simply because of the connection that a woman gets with a child. Regardless of legal contracts or financial arrangements, there are God designed chemical processes which take place between a mother and a child in her womb, which result in a connection that no one who has not given birth themselves can even pretend to understand. I could not live in a right mind, knowing that my wife was struggling in this way. I also believe that I would feel some sort of connection after witnessing my wife carry that child for that entire term. Still, I recognize that there are much more important things to consider than our own sensually based perspectives.

I’ve used the example many times that we must utilize the gospel when making decisions (see 1 Thes. 1.5). If a decision in any way discredits the gospel, then we can be certain that it is immoral. In the case of surrogacy, it is unlikely to be the first avenue that a couple would have taken in order to have a child. When a person has tried all available avenues and then looks to surrogacy as an option, I have to ask about the motive to have a child. Is the motive sensual or is it honestly to fulfill God’s command to multiply. “For if you live for the flesh, you will die: but if through the Holy Spirit you mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live” (Romans 8:13 KJV – simplified). In most cases, the motive is going to be sensual, living by the flesh, which makes the action sin. If surrogacy is sin because of the motive, then it is immoral. Because the situation is morally relative, based on the motive, it is unlikely in any form that it should be done as the inconsistency of the conviction could discredit the church and therefore discredit the gospel message.

Financial compensation is another problematical issue. In almost no place is the practice of selling babies an acceptable or legal practice. The attempts to make a moral decision in light of financial compensation are simply a way to justify what God has called sin. Commercial surrogacy has never existed apart from conflict. Even the unchurched can agree that there are moral concerns regarding surrogacy. This is why lawyers carefully write up contracts in order to make it appear legal. Legal or not, the process proves the immorality of the act since man is simply attempting to justify what God has laid on our hearts as sin.

Where I believe that everyone must consider their own motives in considering surrogacy, I don’t believe that it has any place in my own life. I also believe that regardless of the circumstances and the motives, there is a potential to discredit the gospel, which would make it immoral. In any case, financial compensation should never be considered as it is illegal to sell babies and any attempt to justify the practice is justifying sin. The major issue regarding surrogacy is man’s inability to accept the life circumstances which God has given.

Image Credits: omar_franc, sxc.hu

Reproductive Technology: Third Party Sperm Donation

Jul 17th, 2009
by Anthony Delgado.

No sexReproductive technology has become a hot topic as the field of study is rapidly developing and all sorts of questions on morality are being raised. One area which many are concerned about is third party sperm donation. This is the practice of extracting an egg from the woman and taking sperm from an anonymous man, fertilizing the egg and then implanting the embryo in the woman. Third party sperm donation is neither moral nor immoral of its own nature, but there are many areas which must be considered before forming a conviction on this matter. Man was commanded to subdue the earth and to reproduce fruitfully. On the other hand, many argue that the book of Genesis suggests that God’s plan was for a single, unaltered family unit and that bringing in genetic material from another family would be sinful. Regardless of whether you find the practice immoral or not, it is critical to consider the possibility of life for the extra embryos which are created as a byproduct of this procedure.

Reproductive technology works well with God’s command to “…Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1.28). Certainly, God intended that man and woman be able to have children, but it is not always possible. Often men are not capable of creating sperm qualified for fertilizing an egg. In this case, a third party donor is often considered. Since there is no intercourse between the wife and the donor, there is no possible argument for adultery. In most cases the donor is actually kept anonymous. There is no direct break of command when it comes to the practice of third party sperm donation, however many will argue that it defies God’s plan, therefore challenging His sovereignty. This is a narrow- minded view. God Himself commanded that we “subdue the earth” (Gen. 1.28). This means we are to make use of its resources in every way possible. To make use of this technology is to recognize His sovereignty.

Many will argue that Genesis suggests, on a contextual level, that introducing genetic material which is not from the man or wife, would defy God’s intention for marriage; “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2.24). The argument of the greater context of the passage is a weak argument in that they are making symbolic assumptions in order to form an alternate context. For example, in verse 23 Adam says, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2.23). The assumption is that it is symbolizing an autonomous family relationship. This contextual argument is actually defying proper hermeneutic. Since the passage is narrative, it should be taken literally at first. Symbolism should only be derived further if it is consistent with the rest of scripture, which in this case it is not. The better understanding of “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” is that Eve was literally created from the bone and flesh of Adam and she was created for Adam. The passage has to do with marriage between a man and a woman, not with family autonomy.

The practice of third party sperm donation can quickly become unethical when the procedure itself is considered. Typically, they create more embryos than they actually need since the implantation process is often unsuccessful. This cuts costs in the event that the woman would like to try again if they are lost. If the procedure is successful, then the embryos must be dealt with. Either they can be destroyed or they can be implanted at a later date. If they are destroyed, then it is no different than abortion. It is unethical because it is killing an unborn child. If they are implanted at a later date, then it can be considered moral because it no longer directly defies God’s commands. There is a second problem. The doctor will usually implant four embryos in hopes that at least one will survive. In the event that all of them survive, they will usually suggest that at least one be removed. The most responsible way for this procedure to be done is to fertilize six eggs and implant them three at a time. This gives the greatest possibility of having at least one child, but the man and woman must be ready to have up to six children, should they all survive.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to form their own convictions on the matter. This is not a push for relativism or socially constructed ethics; rather, the heart must be right before God. Seek the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Above all, consider the benefit for the gospel when making convictions as directed in First Thessalonians; the “gospel did not come to you in word only, but also…with full conviction” (1 Thes 1.5). The gospel is our greatest tool for determining whether something is right or wrong. Mohler says, “Understanding the culture…[is] a matter of evangelical urgency” (2008). For purposes of third party sperm donation, we must consider the evangelical benefit of our decision, which will be relative to cultures since each culture will react differently. In some cultures this act may discredit the gospel, where in others it may not. If we somehow discredit the gospel or the church through any action, we can be confident that the action is immoral.

References

Mohler Jr., R. Albert. (2008). Culture Shift. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Multnomah Books

Image Credits: mzacha, sxc.hu

Forming Convictions

Jul 9th, 2009
by Anthony Delgado.

A person is made up of three primary elements: heart, mind and body. The body is the outward appearance. The body is everything that you do or do not do. The mind is everything that you think. It is man’s knowledge and ability to reason, logic. Your heart is your attitude and your feelings. Man has the ability to control his body in order to not appear in sin. The Pharisees, where they misunderstood sin, made great progress in this area, as do many professed Christians. We can appear on the outside to be free from sin. But, it is not enough to be free from sin in body, but we must also be free from sin in mind. Christ said that if we are angry with someone, we are guilty of murder (Matt 5.21,22). This is still not enough. Christ said that the root of our sin is in our hearts (Matt 15.17-19). Not only that, but if we recognize sin in our hearts, then God turns his ear from us (Ps. 66.18). He will not act on our prayers if we are harboring sin. How do you know if you are harboring sin? You know by your convictions.

Defining Conviction

The most common use of conviction is used in a legal sense. It is a declaration of guilt or innocence made by a court. It can also be described as a strong belief or something that you have become convinced of. To convict is to declare blame and to condemn. Based on these definitions, conviction can be summed up as, ‘An action which a person is convinced will result in condemnation.’ The Bible is consistent with this definition. Proverbs says, “The guilty are convicted” (Prov. 24.25) and the guilty are convicted by the Holy Spirit (John 16.8). Therefore, when we form a conviction, we should become convinced that the Holy Spirit will condemn us for an action. Moving forward, remember that the most important part of forming convictions is becoming thoroughly convinced that something will result in God’s condemnation. For most, ‘because the Bible says it’s sin’ will not be adequate to be thoroughly convinced.

Why form convictions?

The obvious response is to avoid God’s condemnation, but there is a bigger reason. It is a reflection of our heart. God is more concerned with our hearts than with our actions. Romans 14.22,23 gives an accurate answer to this question.

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.

Our free will cannot be a reason to sin. All are at liberty to sin, but as Christians, our faith in Jesus Christ should be demonstrated to God through our forming of convictions, our agreement on what is sin.

Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

The idea is that we will find joy in Christ if we do not approve of things that are sin. Notice that it says ‘approve’. Convictions are not just a list of don’ts, they are also a list of dos. Do not be solely concerned about what not to do, otherwise you live fearful, timid lives. Instead fill your life with what you should do, what you approve of, which with proper convictions will result in joy.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin

This passage has to do with the context. Gentile Christians were eating meat which was sacrificed at the temples of Pagan gods. This is not a sin, but the Jewish Christians believed it was. What Paul is saying here is that if they eat the meat, they are sinning by eating the meat from the temple if they have not formed a conviction on the matter, even though eating the meat is not sin. The application is that we cannot simply assume something is sin simply because Mom said so or because our Sunday school teacher said so. We must form a conviction, in order to be absolutely convinced, so that we can exercise our liberty without condemnation.

In summation, we must form convictions in order to not sin. We cannot avoid sin accidentally. Why? God knows the heart. If our hearts do not reflect a desire to follow Him, then our actions are immaterial. For example, honesty can be a sin if it is done out of pride rather than faith. God desires that we have a heart to obey Him, that we form convictions about His will, then our minds and bodies follow suit.

Forming Convictions

As discussed earlier, it is not sufficient for most to read God’s word and call something sin, because scripture suggests it is. It’s like this:

A man opens the Bible to find God’s will. He opens his Bible and reads of Judas, “Then he went away and hanged himself” (Matt 27.5). The man then flips to another scripture and reads, “Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise’” (Luke 10.37).

There are many areas which people argue as to the meaning of a scripture and ultimately what conviction should be derived from it. There are also areas of scripture that seem to contradict values (Ex. Story of Rahab in Joshua 2). There are other factors which must be taken into account, namely, the Holy Spirit and general revelation. God has provided us with multiple sources which will guide us to form convictions and we should make use of them all.

Before forming a conviction, we have to be presented with a situation. This can be a ‘what do I do’ or a ‘what don’t I do’. For example, a conviction can be, ‘I am convicted that lying is evil’ or it can be ‘I am convicted that God wants me to become a missionary.’ In reality we should be forming both types of convictions, dos and don’ts. Scripture is a great place to start for either type of conviction since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3.16,17). All of these elements are related to dos and don’t, but the purpose is to do God’s work and that is our ultimate goal.

Example: It is not enough to read the book of Acts and decide that it is God’s will for you to become a missionary simply because Paul was a missionary. If you read Acts and are challenged to become a missionary, it is likely the work of the Holy Spirit which is calling you to it. In order to form a conviction on your calling you have to spend time in prayer over the matter and ask God to confirm it for you. This brings up another dilemma though. How do you know when and how it has been confirmed?

Sometimes the confirmation is easy, because doors open and God makes it really obvious. Sometimes it’s not so easy. This is where general revelation comes into play. General revelation is our ability to discern good and evil, whether an action is in accordance with God’s will or against it. General revelation is the knowledge of good and evil that was obtained by Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit in the garden. So when we are making a decision, we can look at our evidence and use our God given discernment to begin to form a conviction. Back to the example: if you are trying to confirm whether or not to become a missionary, you have to look at God’s work in creation in order to determine if that work is confirmation or not. If God opens all the doors to go into missionary work, then your natural ability to discern should tell you that is His will for you. If there is no feasibility in it, then your discernment should tell you that it is not your will.

Three main elements are required in order to discern God’s will, but there is one other of vital importance. The “gospel [the message of salvation through Jesus Christ] did not come to you in word only, but also…with full conviction” (1 Thes 1.5). We should always form convictions based on the benefit of the gospel. By nature, a Christian should do this since this conviction was put in us at the time of salvation, but it is an important tool in discerning God’s will. Specifically, you can ask, “How will this benefit or discredit the Gospel?”

Sin is only sin because it’s against God’s will. Similarly everything which is against God’s will is sin. So we are not so much looking to figure out what is sin, but what is for or against God’s will. Let’s return to the story of Rahab. She had a choice to lie or to go against God’s plan to have the Israelites conquer the land of Jericho by giving up the Israelite spies. Since Rahab recognized God’s plan, she hid the spies and God’s plan was done. It is uncommon that we will be faced with such a paradox, but the principal remains the same. Seek God’s will to form convictions.

Result

Without convictions we condemn ourselves out of ignorance. If you do not form convictions by faith them you sin, even if that act is in accordance with your liberty. To obey God’s commands blindly and legalistically without forming convictions based on faith is to bring eternal condemnation upon you. But to discern convictions through scripture, by the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of expanding the Gospel is the hearts demonstration of true faith in Jesus Christ by which we are saved from condemnation.