Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Carter, Craig. “Human Life in Christian Perspective.” In Life and Death Choices: Canadian Baptist Perspectives on the Moral Dilemmas of Human Life Issues, by Robert Duncan and Craig Carter, 24-35. Mississauga, Ont.: Canadian Baptist Federation, 1991. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL:416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Carter, Craig. “Human Life in Christian Perspective.” In Life and Death Choices: Canadian Baptist Perspectives on the Moral Dilemmas of Human Life Issues, by Robert Duncan and Craig Carter, 24-35. Mississauga, Ont. : Canadian Baptist Federation, 1991. Life and Death Choices Canadian Baptist Perspectives on the Moral Dilemmas of Human Life Issues Life and Death Choices first published 1991 by The Canadian Baptist Federation Cover design by Terry Galagher Printed in Canada Caution Copyright remains with the author. This book is fully protected under the copyright laws of Canada and all other countries of the Copyright Union. No part of this book (including cover design) may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval systems, without full acknowledgement of the author and the Canadian Baptist Federation being included in any reproduction. [Note: All biblical quotations throughout this book are from the New International Version © 1973, 1978, by the International Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.] Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Duncan, Robert, 1956- Life and death choices Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-921697-04-8 1. Human reproductive technology - Religious aspects - Baptists. 2. Abortion - Religious aspects - Baptists. 3. Human genetics - Religious aspects. 4. Medical ethics. 5. Baptists - Doctrines. I. Carter, Craig, 1956-. II. Canadian Baptist Federation. III. Title. RG133.5.D863 1991 176 C91-097128-5 Preface Baptists have declared that personal faith in Jesus Christ must be lived out in every facet of life. The Canadian Baptist “collective silence” on many social issues has, at times, given the impression to other denominations and the world at large that such issues are of little interest to us. In recent years the Public Affairs Committee of the Canadian Baptist Federation has actively sought to address this situation by initiating public responses to social issues. This book is a result of such an initiative. The publication in this book of some of the discussion papers that went into the preparation of these briefs represents the hope and prayer of the Canadian Baptist Federation that this book will encourage all who read it to reflect seriously on these vital issues and their relationship to faith. Life and Death Choices is proof that Canadian Baptists take seriously their faith and witness in Jesus Christ in the public arena of life. It is an encouraging sign that the Canadian Baptist Federation is finding a consensus across our nation in Baptist Life. A debt of gratitude is owed to Mrs. Janet Atwood of Winnipeg, who chaired the Task Force on Human Life Issues, to Dr. Shirley Bentall chairman of the Public Affairs Committee and the six members of the Task Force from across the regions, whose hard work has made possible this publication. We also wish to acknowledge Peter Atwood who provided his editorial and typesetting skills. Dr. Richard Coffin, General Secretary Canadian Baptist Federation April 1991 Human Life in Christian Perspective Craig A. Carter As Christians we have a unique perspective on the origin, nature and value of human life. This is not to say that some non-Christians do not also have a high regard for the value of human life; the fact is that many do. But if we believe that we have something worthwhile to say on contemporary human life issues then we must speak specifically as Christians, and in order to do this we must re- examine our Christian beliefs and insights regarding human life. Our goal in this chapter is to discover what the Christian tradition has to say about the subject of human life, which may be significant for the myriad of confusing issues arising from the discovery and use of new reproductive and other medical technologies. As Baptists we affirm the authority of Scripture for all of life. We therefore need to re-examine the biblical teaching on the origin, nature and value of human life in the light of modern debates and issues. We must not expect to find “proof-texts” which will settle complex debates about genetic engineering or fetal transplantation in a straightforward and simple manner because the Bible does not address these issues directly. Rather, we should expect to find an overall perspective on human life which is distinctively Christian, that is, which arises out of the Gospel—the good news about Jesus Christ. This Christian perspective on human life is something which every Christian doctor, nurse, researcher, patient, ethicist, taxpayer, elected official, administrator and pastor should carry with him or her throughout the process of evaluating, participating in, or supporting these various new technologies. We can not and must not try to isolate any aspect of our lives from our Christian faith. We must think Christianly about the dilemmas raised by new medical technologies. One of the temptations confronting Christians who seek to have a voice in the public policy-making arena of our modern, post-Christian society is the temptation to conform to the religious and philosophical pre-suppositions of the majority culture. We have not yet come to terms with our new status as a minority in a post-Constantinian society. We are no longer “insiders.” We are “outsiders,” and it is a new and rather uncomfortable role for many of us. Some Christians panic and react by abandoning or altering any and all Christian beliefs which conflict with modern cultural pre-suppositions. These Christians may be called the “accommodationists,” and their fate is to be nothing more than a faint echo of the liberal elements of secular society. 25 On the other hand, other Christians have sensed such a deep and fundamen- tal divide between their biblical views and the “taken for granted” beliefs of modern, secular culture that they have given up trying to speak in the public realm at all. These Christians may be called the “isolationists,” and their fate is always to remain irrelevant to the secular culture around them. Canadian Bap- tists have, in recent years, been in more danger of the isolationist error than the accommodationist error, at least in terms of verbal pronouncements. In terms of lifestyle, Baptists have a problem with accommodationism just as more liberal types of Christians do. The Canadian Baptist Federation”s Task Force on Human Life Issues is one of the ways we are trying to become more responsible in terms of Christian social witness. The obvious danger is that we could go from isolationism to accommodationism in our eagerness to attain balance. We need to adopt a stance of critical engagement with our culture in which we maintain our distinc- tive Christian beliefs but bring them into dialogue with modern culture. If we are to be successful in this we must be sure to keep our biblical Christian perspec- tive on human life front and center in our thinking. In the rest of this chapter we shall, therefore, examine three strands of biblical teaching which relate to the origin, nature and value of human life. First there is the teaching of Genesis 1-2 on the creation of human beings in the image of God. Secondly, there is the prohibition of murder, especially in the form of the sixth commandment. Thirdly, there is the teaching about the redemption of human beings through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each has something important to say about human life. The Image of God We begin our examination of biblical teaching on human life at the beginning of the Bible. Genesis 1-2 contains an account of the creation of the universe by God. This account covers all of reality. Everything which exists was created by God and therefore everything is under His sovereign Lordship and control. The human creature is portrayed as the climax of God’s creative work, created on the sixth day according to Genesis 1. The second creation account in Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of humanity as male and female. The entire creation is pronounced good (Gen. 1:31) and humanity is entrusted with the stewardship of the earth as God’s representatives. Genesis 1:27 has been seen by most theologians and biblical commentators as a key verse for understanding the biblical perspective on the origin, nature and value of human life. 26 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. What does it mean to say that we are created in the image of God? This question is a complex one which has been debated for centuries by theologians. Has the image been lost or partially lost through sin? Does the image consist of ration- ality? Does it consist of holiness? Is the image of God the same as the modern concept of personhood? Despite the complexity of these and other related issues we must come to at least some conclusions about the meaning of the image because of the centrality of this concept in the biblical perspective on human life. There are three aspects of the image of God that seem to be embedded within the text itself. The Image as Gift First, we must not overlook the obvious fact that the Bible presents the image as a gift and not as any type of human achievement. We have been created by God; we did not create ourselves. We are constituted as being in God’s image by the creative power of God and not by anything we do, achieve or earn. Modern consciousness, both Marxist and Western, is shaped by a philoso- phy of origins known as naturalistic evolutionism. Most modern people think of the human race as having evolved by chance from lower life forms and, ultimately, from inorganic matter. Integral to this process of evolution is the struggle for survival and the outcome of this struggle is the survival of the fittest. Increasingly, modern human beings are coming to believe that it is their duty to shape and mold the human race into yet higher forms. We are now able to control non-human nature to a significant extent and the next challenge is the rational control of human nature as well. George P. Grant, the perceptive Canadian Christian philosopher, has written in his book Technology and Justice of the ominous implications for political liberty of the manipulation of human nature itself.1 We are told that we must take control of the evolutionary process and begin to steer it. Grant writes of the new science of cybernetics, the mobilization of the arts and sciences for the purpose of controlling human behaviour in mass societies (p. 17). Modern people see human beings as assuming responsibility for what we will become and free to become what we will. There is no such thing as “human nature” in the sense of a fixed determi- nation of our being. Rather, human nature evolves historically and differs from non-human nature only in degree and not qualitatively. Clearly, the biblical teaching that we are created by God is in tension with modern consciousness. The idea that we are creatures of a loving and sovereign 27 God is one which contradicts modern assumptions about freedom, history and human destiny.2 The point at which the tension is most apparent, however, is in the debate about nersonhood. The word “person” is the key term in the debate over abortion and related issues. People often ask, “When does a fetus become a person?” and then base their acceptance or rejection of abortion on the answer. In constitutional law, the word “person” is a technical term used to describe those who have a right to equal protection under the law. The distinction between person and human being is clear. At one time slaves were deemed not to be persons and thus not entitled to the legal protection of their rights. Until this century women were not considered to be persons and on this basis their right to vote was denied. In recent years various court decisions have treated the human fetus as a non- person and thus denied the fetus the right to protection. The modern secularist approaches the issue of personhood from a natural- istic evolutionary framework in which the boundary between inorganic and organic matter is fuzzy indeed. It is not surprising that most secular thinkers reject a biological definition of personhood. Instead the tendency is to attribute personhood only to those members of the biological species who measure up to some standard; for example, average health, average intelligence or average ability to communicate. Members of the species who do not measure up to the standard are less than full persons and those at the extremes, (the very young, the very elderly, the very sick, the very handicapped), may not be considered persons at all. Thus, some members of the human species are only potential persons, and full personhood is something they must earn, attain or achieve. Some members of the species will never attain personhood and may therefore be killed if they are unwanted. The biblical understanding of the image of God is very different from the modern conception of personhood. The word “person” is not found in the Bible. Of course the word is found in some English translations, but that is only because it is derived from the Latin translation of the original Greek. Certain Latin versions translated Greek and Hebrew words for face, man and soul by the Latin “persona” and English translation retained the Latin word. But the Latin word is not an exact translation of any of the Hebrew or Greek words.3 The word “persona” was originally used to describe the mask through which an actor spoke his part. It was later applied to the person acting the part and then to the character and finally to anyone having character or status. As Fowler points out in Abortion: Toward An Evangelical Consensus, “Because the term ‘person,’ historically has accented the performance of an individual, it has suited the needs of those who wish to define personhood in terms of discernable actions such as thinking, acting and feeling” (p. 97). For example, Joseph Fletcher, a 28 well-known contemporary non-Christian ethicist would regard all human be- ings who score less than a minimal standard on an I.Q. test non-persons.4 The Bible does not speak of “persons” being created in the image of God, however, it speaks of human beings (man, woman, life, soul) being created in the image of God.5 The image of God is not something which only certain members of the human species attain. It is a gift bestowed on us by our Creator who makes us like Himself. To be human is to be in the image of God.6 We cannot give or take away this status from each other. All we can do is choose whether or not to respect the image of God in fellow human beings or not. The Image as Love A second aspect of the image of God is found in the scriptures in Genesis 1:27. The human creature is said to be created as male and female as though this were part of the definition of the image.7 God, who is Himself a Trinity of Persons in community, has made the human creature male and female to reflect this relational aspect of His nature. As David Atkinson puts it in The Message of Genesis 1-11: The God we have come to know and worship in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is a Trinity of Persons in whom loving, creativity and personal communion belong together.... This means that personal communion in love between persons is what the image of God is primarily about, (p. 38) The wonder of creation is that God, the self-sufficient and perfect One, willed the existence of a being with whom God would have a relationship of love. In his book Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching, Walter Brueggemann draws out the implication of saying that sexual differen- tiation is part of the image. He says: “Only in community of humankind is God reflected. God is ... not mirrored as an individual but as a community” (p. 34). In our highly individualistic modern Western culture this sounds heretical for we Eve in a culture which practically worships the individual. But the biblical perspective on humanity is that the human creature was created for love. David Atkinson expresses it succinctly: To understand the image of God primarily in terms of relationship, is to see it not only as a gift from God—as he calls us into relationship with himself—but as a task to be undertaken, a destiny to be followed. (p. 39) The task is love. To be human is to love and be loved. 29 It is clear that if love is the image of God in humanity then the image has not been lost completely because of sin. But it has certainly been damaged and is in desperate need of renewal. This renewal is exactly what takes place in redemption, according to the New Testament. Paul speaks of the new self “which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Col. 4:10). Love is the pattern for human relationships which has been revealed in Jesus Christ. As John puts it: This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.... And this is his command: to believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. (1 John 3:16, 23) As we are renewed by God’s grace we are transformed into the image of Jesus Christ, who is the perfect image of God in his loving communion with the Father. The only time God is ever defined in the Bible He is defined as love, (1 John 4:16), and love is the mark of those have true fellowship with God, (1 John 4:8). As G. C. Berkouwer puts it in Man: The Image of God, “The likeness to God is concerned with the likeness of loved children” (p. 105). The human creature was created by God for a loving fellowship with God. Human relationships, and especially the marriage relationship, are faint reflections or images of the loving relationships within God himself. In this way human beings bear the image of God. The Image as Stewardship A third aspect or the image of God found in the text of Scripture is found in the verse immediately following Genesis 1:27. In verse 28 we read what has often been called the “cultural mandate”: God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. God is the ultimate ruler and Lord of creation but He has entrusted the rule of the earth to humanity. The human creature is like God in that humanity has the responsibility (under God) to care for and develop the potential of the creation. This could be termed delegated lordship or stewardship and it is part of what it means for humanity to be created in the image of God. Care must be taken to distinguish the concept of stewardship from a totalitarian and selfish abuse and rape of creation. Many secularists today see Christianity as being at least partially to blame for the ecological mess in which 30 the world finds itself.8 While it is no doubt true that the Church and individual Christians have often failed to exercise good stewardship, it is not the Bible, but the distortion of the Bible, which has been their justification. What God created was good, harmonious, beautiful, balanced and a good environment for human- ity. What fallen humanity has done is to manipulate, misuse and selfishly destroy and use up the good creation. This is why the New Testament pictures the creation itself as groaning in anticipation of the day when redemption will finally be complete. (Rom. 8:19-22) There is a tremendous difference between the concepts of ownership and stewardship. The world is not ours to use as we wish. We are responsible to God for our treatment of His creation. We, as Christians, encounter the world as something good and as something with structure and integrity of its own. The consistent naturalistic evolutionist encounters the world as mere raw material which he or she is free to use, use up, or alter as he or she sees fit. This difference in perspective becomes clearly noticeable when it comes to the use of new technologies which have the power to alter humanity, as well as the power to heal and enhance humanity. The Christian will joyfully make use of techniques such as gene therapy to cure diseases like cystic fibrosis while resisting the pressure, for example, to try and alter the race genetically in order to make humanity less aggressive. There is a line between healing and control- ling. A good counsellor will help a highly dependent individual become more self-reliant, even though he or she might possess the technical know-how to manipulate the client into a dependency relationship with the counsellor, which the counsellor could then exploit selfishly. The Prohibition of Murder The second strand of biblical teaching on the origin, nature and value of human life which we will explore, is the prohibition of murder. The sixth command- ment prohibits murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life (Exod. 20:13). But the biblical teaching on this issue is not confined to a single law. Throughout Scripture the taking of innocent human life is treated as an offense against God, in whose image human life has been created. The Old Testament In Genesis 4:10 we read of God’s concern for the slain Abel: “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” Killing is seen as pollution of the land in Numbers 35:33: 31 So you shall not pollute the land in which you are for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for blood that is shed on it except by the blood of him who shed it. In Deuteronomy, provision is made for the purification of the land if a slain person is found in the field (21:1-9). The book of Proverbs begins with a warning against shedding innocent blood (1:10-11; 15-16; 18-19). The shed- ding of innocent blood is cited as a major reason for the fall of Judah: Surely at the command of the Lord it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not forgive. (2 Kings 24: 3-4) In God’s covenant with Noah, God’s image in humanity is the reason why murder is wrong. And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood By man shall his blood be shed, For in the image of God He made man. (Gen. 9:5-6) Whatever this text may imply for the rightness or wrongness of capital punish- ment today, one thing is clear: the evil of murder consists in the fact that it is not just an attack on a fellow creature, but also an attack on the image of the Creator in that creature. The New Testament The New Testament broadens and deepens the commandment that we must not commit murder. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes beyond the prohibition of physical murder to repudiate the thoughts of hatred, prejudice and jealousy which constitute murder in the heart (Matt. 5:21-22). He also expands the definition of the prohibition of murder to include positive service of others in his discussion with the rich, young ruler (Matt. 19:18-20). Paul, also, teaches that the deeper meaning of the commandments against murder, stealing and so on, have to with love of neighbour: 32 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet” and whatever other commandments there may be are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:9-10) Even cursing people is wrong, says James, because people are made in God’s image (Jas. 3:9). The biblical prohibition of murder needs to be seen in the context of the biblical understanding of who and what the human creature is. As Christians we oppose all forms of human oppression, degradation and exploitation, including murder, not simply because of human empathy or because these things are illegal. We oppose the attack on the human being because it is ultimately an attack on God Himself. We see Jesus in every human creature we meet, even the sick, the prisoners, the naked and the hungry (Matt. 25:31-46). When we see people suffer we see our Lord suffering along with them and our willingness to alleviate that suffering is a measure of our love for Christ (1 John 3:14; Jas. 2:14-17). The Redemption of Human Life A third strand of biblical teaching about the origin, nature and value of human life is that which speaks of the redemption of human life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Christians we realize the importance of human life to God when we reflect on the incredible lengths to which He went in order to redeem us from sin. There are numerous biblical references and passages relating to this point but, in the interests of space, we will focus on only three sub-themes of the overall theme of redemption. The Incarnation Firstly, we note the significance of the incarnation for the value of human life. God has cared for human beings so much that He sent His Son to take on human flesh in order to redeem it. The Word became flesh (John 1:14) in order to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and those who believe on Him have eternal life (John 3:16). People have worth because God values them. His assessment of the value of human life is plain for all to see in the story of Christmas. Phillippians 2:5-11 is a meditation on the wonder of Jesus’ volun- tary self-humiliation in the incarnation. 33 The Cross Secondly, we see the climax of the incarnation in the cross of Christ. In the agony and suffering of the God-man we see the depth and power of the love of God for the human creature: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Any theology that does not feel the scandal and the wonder of a suffering incarnate God-man is a shallow theology. And any ethic that takes at all lightly our responsibility to our “brother for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15) is a shallow ethic. Human life is precious and even sacred because every living human being is the object of God’s suffering love. The Resurrection of the Body Thirdly, the value of human life can be seen in the biblical teaching that human life extends beyond death. The Bible views life after death, not in terms of the survival of the soul and the death of the body, but rather, in terms of the resurrection of the dead. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor. 15:20-22) We cannot fully understand what kind of existence we will have after the resurrection of the body. We know that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), but we do not yet understand what it means to have a “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). What we can understand, however, is that the human creature is more than an animal who is bom and lives a few years only to perish forever. The doctrine of the resurrection teaches us that we are created by God for Himself, not just for time, but for eternity. Our earthly lives are but a portion of our total existence. Human beings are more valuable than any secularist could ever think or imagine. Summary In conclusion let us review what we have discovered about the biblical perspec- tive on the origin, nature and value of human life. We have examined three strands of biblical teaching about human life which correspond to the three central themes of Scripture, namely, those of creation, fall and redemption. The biblical theme of creation teaches us that the human creature is created in the image of God. The image can be understood as a gift, (as opposed to 34 something we earn or attain), as love, (in that we are essentially creatures who find their fulfillment in relationships of love), and as stewardship (in that we are responsible for the care of the earth). In the light of humanity's fall into sin we have the prohibition of murder, which is seen in Scripture as an attack on the God whose image the human creature bears. The prohibition of minder is the negative expression of the positive mandate to love one another which was God’s original intention for the human race. The biblical theme of redemption reveals to us the tremendous value of human life. Jesus Christ has become a human being, has suffered death on our behalf and been raised again for our redemption. God’s love for humanity is our mandate to love each other as He has loved us. Human life could not have any higher value than the value placed on it by the Bible. The Christian perspective on human life is one which should lead us to respect and care for every human being we encounter no matter what stage he or she might be on the continuum from conception to natural death. Endnotes 1 George Grant writes: “The new adage of rulers and educators is that to the mastery of non-human nature must now be added mastery of ourselves. The desire for ‘mastery of ourselves’ (which generally means the mastery of other people) results in the proliferation of new arts and sciences directed toward human control, so that we can be shaped to five consonantly with the demands of mass society” (p. 16). 2 Whether we accept some form of Theistic Evolution, hold to a literal six day creation or go for something in between, is not really significant for this point. If we believe in creation at all we have denied that human beings are the products of chance and merely naturalistic forces and materials 3 See the discussion of this point in P. B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward An Evangelical Consensus, pp. 96-97. 4 Fletcher, Joseph. “Indications of Humanhood.” Hastings Center Report November, 1972: 1-3. 5 This is the point at which D. Gareth Jones goes astray, in his otherwise fine work, Brave New People: Ethical Issues at the Commencement of Life. Jones completely fails to distinguish between the biblical concept of the image of God and the modern concept of personhood and ends up reading the latter into the biblical text. This, in turn, leads him to regard the fetus only as a potential person 35 and to regard abortion permissible in certain circumstances (pp. 14-15 and 15Off). 6 For a fuller exposition of this point see Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p.184. 7 Karl Barth bases his discussion of the meaning of the image of God, totally on this point. See pp. 184ff. 8 See, for example, the famous article by the historian Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155 (19647): 1203-7. Further Reading Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1-11. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1990. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3. Trans. A. T. MacKay, et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961. Berkouwer, G. C. Man: The Image of God. Trans. D. W. Jellema. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary For Preaching and Teaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982. Fowler, P. B. Abortion: Toward An Evangelical Concensus. Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1987. Grant, G. P. Technology and Justice. Toronto, ON: House of Anansi, 1986. Lake, D. M. “A Theological Perspective on Abortion.” In Abortion: A Christian Understanding and Response. Ed. J. K. Hoffmeier. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Lammers, S. E., and A. Verhey, Eds. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspec- tives in Medical Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. Glasgow: William Collins Sons, 1943. ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****