I have been a member of congregations in association with the Southern Baptist Convention most of my life. Most people don’t really understand what the SBC is, so I’ll give a little set-up before getting into the reason I’m writing. Local Baptist congregations voluntarily associate in local Associations, State Conventions, and the national Southern Baptist Convention. For Southern Baptists, the primary reason for this voluntary association is cooperation on missions, very loosely bound by basic doctrinal agreements. These associational groups have no authority over the local congregation. Annually, messengers from local congregations are sent to representative gatherings. Reports from various entities are given, preachers preach (it is a gathering of church folk, after all), necessary business is conducted, and resolutions are adopted that give voice to the general thought of the collective to the rest of the world.
I’ve stripped all the
particularities of who and where from the following account. I’m not writing to
put a spotlight on people or groups. This is here to make us ask ourselves how
consistent we’re being in our ethics, and to revive a point made by a much
better writer and thinker than myself eight years ago. File this under the “What
Are We Willing to Do to Be Safe?” category.
At a Baptist State
Convention’s annual meeting Monday night (October 26, 2020) there was a
statement by the head of the Resolutions Committee that bothered me.
A pastor had proposed a
resolution to the Resolutions Committee. That resolution had been rejected. The
pastor then brought it to the floor in the form of a motion during a session
called “Miscellaneous Business” between music sets: “As Southern Baptists, we
are decidedly against abortion and fetal tissue research, as confirmed by many
previous resolutions. This resolution that I’m putting forward is rejecting of
any products derived from abortion or fetal tissue research. This resolution is
important, so that we may be informed about what products are being made and
marketing to us that are made from aborted babies. Please vote ‘yes,’ so that
tomorrow we may have an opportunity to at least consider this resolution to
support life.”
Since the Resolutions
Committee had not brought the proposed resolution to the Convention, this
motion would require a 2/3 majority vote to bring it to a vote the following
evening (Tuesday, October 27, 2020).
The head of the
Resolutions Committee then took to the stage and explained why the Committee
had not carried the proposed resolution forward: “Thank you, Mr. President [of
the State Convention]. As chairman of the Resolutions Committee, I wanted to
give you a little background on why we decided not to report this to the
Committee. Southern Baptists have long been opposed to abortion for the purpose
of harvesting stem cells from fetuses for various types of research and product
development. However, this resolution makes no distinction between existing
lines and new lines that would, perhaps, be required for these things. There
were a couple of areas that concerned us. Number one is, a lot of the vaccines
that are commonly used today, part of the CDC’s guidelines – there is no
alternative at this point that does not depend on existing lines of embryonic
stem cells. The IMB, the International Mission Board, requires missionaries to
be vaccinated with several vaccines…to which, to our knowledge there are no
other alternatives other than those that are made from existing cell lines.
Also, I would read – brother [the name of the pastor who was trying to bring
the resolution to the Convention] just mentioned this – I would read, ‘we would
not seek to preserve our temporal or earthly bodies at the sake of our
spiritual souls, but instead reject the use of vaccines that were made from the
exploitation of unborn human beings.’ We are in the middle of a global
pandemic, we are anxiously all waiting for a vaccine that can render these
things [holds up a fabric mask] meaningless for all time, and we can get back
to some level of normalcy. We are certainly not encouraging new aborted - new
lines to be established, but if existing lines can be used to get us to a
COVID-19 vaccine, I think we’d want to be careful about something like this
that could be perceived as being anti-vaccine in the hearts of [the State in
which this Convention is being held] Baptists. Thank you, Mr. President.”
It was at this point my
wife and I looked at each other. What had just been said?
A messenger to the
Convention then spoke, pointing out that unless a stand is taken, there will be
no alternatives. The speaker then observed that the Southern Baptist Convention
as a whole contains enough numbers to demand an alternative.
The motion to consider
the resolution the following night passed with the necessary 2/3 majority vote
by the messengers in attendance.
The Committee clarified
on Tuesday in discussion that it commended all of the Resolution except the “last
resolve,” which spoke to rejecting even vaccines created from existing lines
originating from stem cells from aborted embryos. The Committee felt like this
would unnecessarily bind the consciences of Baptists in this state (remember
that neither the State Convention or the resolution passed has authority over
the local congregation or its individual members) – they viewed it as a liberty
of conscience issue whether or not Baptists used these vaccines or not, derived
from “old cell lines from fetal tissue.”
Another messenger,
speaking in favor of the resolution referenced a few words of Jesus:
* “Do not fear those
who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but
rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell” (Matthew 10:28).
* “If your hand or your
foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for
you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be
cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and
throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to
have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell” (Matthew 18:8-9).
One spoke concerned
about the wording of the resolution. She asked if we were willing to stop
sending missionaries from our state overseas to countries that required these
vaccines. Can we continue support to support international missions, since
missionaries from others states would be required to have these vaccines in
order to enter certain nations?
A ballot count was
called when the visual count wasn’t discernable. The resolution passed (242
yes, 175 no).
*******
On Use of Products of
Fetal Tissue Research
WHEREAS, the Southern
Baptist Convention has decidedly opposed elective abortion, resolved from many
previous resolutions including On the Sanctity of Human Life at the SBC
Annual Meeting [2015]; and
WHEREAS, the Southern
Baptist Convention has decidedly opposed fetal tissue research and the sale of
aborted baby parts, resolved from many previous resolutions including On
Human Fetal Tissue Trafficking at the 2000 SBC Annual Meeting; and
WHEREAS, certain
vaccines on the CDC schedule, certain potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, certain
pharmaceuticals, certain artificial flavors, and certain health and beauty
items are all products fetal tissue research; and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that we
affirm our abhorrence of elective abortion; be it further
RESOLVED, that we
affirm our disapproval of research using fetal parts from elective abortions;
RESOLVED, that we
affirm our stance against the exploitation of unborn human beings through the
sale of their body parts; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that we
reject the use of any and all products of fetal tissue research including but not
limited to: vaccines, pharmaceuticals, artificial flavors, and health and
beauty items.
*******
The reasoning of the Resolutions
Committee on not bringing this to the Convention reminded me of an article I
read quite a while ago. The relevant takeaway is this: “Survival is not the highest
good.” I can’t find a direct link to the article (the website on which it
originally appeared is no longer active), so here’s the text:
“Christians and The
Hunger Games”
Written by Douglas Wilson
March 23, 2012
There are ethical dilemmas, and then there are the phony baloney ones. The
famous National Lampoon magazine cover did not pose a genuine ethical dilemma -
buy this magazine or we shoot the dog.
Many years ago I was working on a television show with the local PBS station at
WSU, and Nancy and I were invited over to dinner by the producer and his wife.
They were very gracious, and we enjoyed our time with them. But one of the
events of the evening that turned out to be a dud was when our host brought out
a game which was called, I think, Scruples. Something like that. At any rate,
the point of the game was that you drew a card that dealt you some kind of
ethical thumb-sucker from a stack of ethical conundra, to make up a
funny-sounding plural. If you are stuck in a lifeboat, and you will most
certainly die if you don’t do something, do you eat the fat guy or the skinny
guy first? That kind of thing. You were then supposed to say something like
whoa, and think about it for a while, twisting in the wind. I can really see
how a living room full of wealthy relativists in an upscale neighborhood in the
eighties could really be flummoxed by the game, but we were no fun at all.
There are certain things you just don’t do because the Ten Commandments were
not suggestions, and the game is over.
This said, The Hunger Games specializes in a similar kind of elaborate
set-up for situation ethics. In this review, I will not be going after the book
for stylistic faults. It does not open itself up for that kind of thing the way
Twilight did. The writing in this book was competent enough, and the
pacing delivers what it promises. The premise had a lot of potential - gladiatorial
games meet reality television in a dystopic future.
The country is Panem, set in a future and really messed up North America. The
place is run by the Capitol, and there are twelve districts run by the harsh
and cruel guys in the Capitol. There had been a war of rebellion sometime back,
and the Capitol had won it, and now exacted a harsh and inflexible penalty on
all the previously rebellious districts. Those districts have been utterly
cowed.
The book is written in the first person, and the protagonist is a young girl
named Katniss Everdeen. Her father was killed some years before in a mining
accident, her relationship with her mother is strained because of how her
mother had collapsed after her father’s death, and the only person she really
loves is her younger sister, Primrose. But then Prim, as she is called, is
chosen by the lottery for the Hunger Games. Katniss volunteers to take her
place, which is good and sacrificial and noble, and that is the point of the
whole set up. We’ll come back to it.
Every year, each district is forced by lottery to send one boy and one girl
(between the ages of twelve and eighteen) as tributes to the Hunger Games,
where they are all put into a closed off area, a vast outdoor arena, and forced
to fight it out to the death. The arena is full of cameras everywhere, and
everybody in Panem is forced to watch the games. As I said earlier, the premise
is one full of dramatic potential.
Katniss is tough and edgy enough to be a survivor in the Hunger Games (which
means she will have to kill other people’s brothers and sisters), and soft
enough to be likeable. The reader can begin to identify with her . . . if the
reader takes his eye off the ball. I don’t like books that make me choose
between the fat guy and the skinny guy.
Suppose the Capitol bad guys had decided to set up a different required sin in
their games. Suppose it were the Rape Games instead. Suppose that the person
who made it through the games without being raped was the feted winner. Anybody
here think that this series would be the bestselling phenomenon that this one
is?
In short, when you have the privilege of setting up all the circumstances
artificially, in order to give your protagonist no real choice about whether to
sin or not, it is a pretty safe bet that a whole lot of people in a
relativistic country, including the Christians in it unfortunately, won’t
notice.
As the book progresses, the ethical problems are effectively disguised. The
first way is by having a number of the wealthier districts send tributes who
are semi-pro. In other words, they are not reluctant participants, but are
eager for the glory that attends winning the games. When that kind of guy comes
after you, everything is self-defense. Then there is the fact that there are a
bunch of them out there killing each other, and Katniss doesn’t have to do it.
And the third device, and the one that keeps you turning the pages, that the
author does not reveal whether or not Katniss will be willing to kill when it
gets down the bitter end, and her opponents are innocents like she is. In other
words, you have a likeable protagonist who is fully expecting to do something
that is perfectly appalling by the end of the book.
There is a twelve-year-old girl named Rue that Katniss teams up with, and there
is an expectation that later in the games the alliance will be dissolved . . .
and you know what will happen then. Rue is the same age as Prim. There is a boy
from her own district named Peeta who has been in love with Katniss forever,
and who gave her family a loaf of bread a number of years before. Is he going
to kill her or vice versa? I hear that spoilers are supposed to be bad, so I
won’t tell you what happens.
The Capitol is hateful, and cruel, and distasteful, and obnoxious, and
decadent, and icky . . . but not evil, as measured against any external
standard. The Capitol is to be disliked because the Capitol is making people do
things they would rather not be doing. But nowhere is there a simple refusal.
There is a desire to have it all go away, but everybody participates with an
appropriate amount of sullenness.
The story is told with enough detachment and distance that you feel like the
participants really do have to cooperate. Resistance is futile . . .
But think for a moment. Someone tells you to murder a twelve-year-old girl, or
they will kill you. What do you do? Suppose they give the twelve-year-old girl
a head start? Suppose they give her a gun and tell her that if she murders you
first, and she will be okay?
This is what situation ethics specializes in. Suppose a woman is in a
concentration camp, and she can save her husband’s life, or her child’s life,
through sexual bribes given to the guards. What should she do? Suppose you
could save one hundred thousand lives by torturing someone to death on national
television. What should you do? The response should be something like, “Let me
think about it, no.” As Thomas Watson put it, better to be wronged than to do
wrong. It is not a sin to be murdered. It is not a sin to have your loved ones
murdered. It is not a sin to defend your loved ones through every lawful means.
But that is the key, that phrase. Every lawful means only makes sense when
there is a law, and that only makes sense when there is a Lawgiver. Without
that, everything is just dogs scrapping over a piece of meat. And once that is
the framework, there is no real way to evaluate anything. The history of the
Church is filled with families being martyred together. Survival is not the
highest good.
Back in the Cold War, a joke was told about an admiral who was inspecting a
destroyer, and was making the rounds while they were out at sea. He came upon a
lookout, a lowly sailor, standing there with his binoculars. “Lad,” he said,
“what would you do if a Russian destroyer appeared on the horizon there?”
“Sir,” the man said, “I’d nuke ‘em.” “Oh,” said the admiral. “What would you do
if ten of them appeared?” “I’d nuke them too, sir.” “I see,” said the admiral.
“What would you do if the whole Russian fleet appeared there?” “I’d nuke them
all, sir,” came the reply. “And,” the admiral said, pressing his point home,
“where are you getting all these nukes?”
“The same place you’re getting the Russians, sir.”
When you are imagining some kind of scenario, it is easy to construct one
exactly to the needs of your plot, and the sub-creating author can create a
world in which it is not true that “God will not let you be tempted beyond what
you are able to bear.” Your tributes are in the arena with a command to kill or
be killed, and in this place it is not true that with every temptation there is
a way of escape. For faithful believers, the way of escape might be martyrdom.
Daniel’s three friends worked through it that way. They said that their God was
able to save them, but whether He saved them or not, they weren’t going to bow
down to the statue.
If you hate spoilers, you can stop reading here. Katniss does survive, and she
does so without doing anything perfectly appalling. But this only happens
because of luck, not because she learned anything about how the world is
actually governed. There is a functional omniscience that the Capitol has in
the arena - everything is filmed - and she has real distaste for that
functional omniscience, but without any sense that there is any other kind of
omniscience. And she does kill one of the bad guy tributes right at the end,
but as this is arranged in the book, it is a mercy killing.
Out of five stars I would give this book three. In terms of holding your
interest, Suzanne Collins gets four. In terms of keeping a sense of ethical
tension in a world without ethics, she would get a five. That’s something that
is hard to do. But in terms of helping Christian young people set their minds
and hearts on that which is noble and right, we can’t even give it one star. We
would have to assign, in this last category, one burnt out asteroid.
