Frozen Embryos & the Gospel: Is It Time to Consider Embryo Adoption?

Yesterday we talked about adoption and I mentioned the challenge and the need to start thinking about adopting embryos. Here is the article I referenced.


The question of bioethics continues to be a challenge in our culture.  Everyday, new issues arise that force us to think seriously about the implications of our worldview and what ethical conclusions are best guidelines for our culture.  Ongoing medical and technological advances force us to go beyond abortion and euthanasia but also to consider issues like cloning, infertility treatments like in-vitro fertilization, embryonic and adult stem-cell research, genetic testing, chimeras, and many other countless ethical and moral issues.

A few months ago, the world of biotechnology forced the world to heighten its ongoing debate regarding frozen embryos.  An unnamed 42-year old woman recently gave birth to an embryo that had been frozen for 20 years setting a new record for the oldest baby born.  The mother adopted the embryo that had been created by another couple that created multiple embryo's as they went through in-vitro fertilization treatments.  When that couple had successful with other embryos and unwilling to birth their other frozen embryonic-children, they simply allowed the clinic to put the remaining embryos up for adoption for similar couples struggling with infertility (or we might add feminists and lesbians unwilling to conceive the more traditional way).

This all means that the boy born in May of this year has a full-blooded sibling conceived at about the same time as he was, but technically, 20 years older than him.

The issue of frozen embryos is a serious issues that needs to be taken more seriously.  In a culture that considers the embryo a commodity or as "potential" life, such barracks of unplanted embryos is not that big of a deal.  But to those who consider an embryo to be human life ought to be shocked to think that humans are literally being frozen in time.  How Western nations have legally responded to this issue makes it only more frightening.  According to new British Laws, a frozen embryo cannot be stored for more than 55 years.  Thus, the far majority of embryo's (read:  human life) is either destroyed (I'm guessing to make more room for other frozen embryos) or donated for research (in which the embryo will be destroyed).  Either way, human life becomes an experiment or a second-thought.  The world in which we live in is a frightening thought.

At this point perhaps we should begin discussing how Christians ought to respond.  With anger?  Rightly so.  With concern?  How could we not?  With a call to action in defense of innocent human life being stored and oftentimes destroyed?  No doubt.  But is it not time for us to consider, especially as Christians, another option in addition to each of these?  If we are truly pro-life and want to defend the lives of those not given the chance of life and oftentimes encourage scared mothers to give their children up for adoption at birth, perhaps it is time for Christians to more seriously consider embryo adoption.

Unfortunately most Christians have not given this any thought.  With millions of experimental frozen lives sitting on shelves soon to be destroyed, how can we not intervene?  And while we continue to fight for their life through cultural debate and legislative action, why don't we also focus on something more powerful:  the gospel and adoption.  Christians are grounded in the gospel.  We are redeemed and have our faith, hope, and identity in the gospel.  The gospel ought to be everything in our lives.  All that we say, do, believe, and fight for ought to be driven by that fundamental doctrine of the gospel  So why not apply the gospel to a world that considers human life to be nothing more than an experiment or a commodity?

So what does the gospel have to do with frozen embryos and embryo adoption?  Everything.  The gospel begins with God's holiness and our depravity.  The gospel humbles us and exalts our Father.  Our God is bigger than the pockets we try to fit Him in.  At the same time, we are rebels.  We have spit in God's eye (so to speak).  However, in spite of such angry vitriol against our Creator, God has not only loved us, but has offered His love through the sacrificial gift of His Son.  And through the cross and resurrection, we are not just given a clean slate, but declared and made righteous and adopted as sons of God - heirs with Christ.

Adoption is central to the gospel.

How can we who have been adopted by God not give serious consideration to the adoption of others?  Certainly there are serious issues and questions to raise and consider prior to making a decision to adopt either an already born child, a soon-to-be born child, or a frozen embryo, but I believe it is time for Christians to take this more seriously.  At the same time, it is necessary for Christians to see that the gospel goes beyond walking the aisle but has real-life implications.  Do we see the gospel in the lives of the unwanted and the frozen?  In our confused world, Christians must respond with more than just legislative action, but with gospel evangelism and gospel-saturated action.  Until we go beyond the voting booth, the many ethical and moral issues we face today will not go away.  It is time for Christians to do more than just vote and debate.  It is time we act.  It is time we do what God has done for us:  show mercy, love the stranger, liberate, redeem, and yes, adopt.


Telegraph - Baby born from embryo frozen 20 years ago 
My Fox NY - Baby Born From Embryo Frozen For 20 Years 


For more:
Blogizomai - The Challenge of Frozen Embryos:  South Korea Undefines Human Life  
Blogizomai - Whose the Daddy?:  Biological Truth and Moral Ideology 

Has Science Buried God?: A Helpful Video

I thought this video was helpful.  In Sunday School, the youth has been walking through the book of Genesis and we spent a long time on creation.  In this short video, Andy Davis provides some of the problems with the theory of evolution (such as genetics, etc.) and how science hasn't buried God.



HT: Pure Church

Lewis on the Accident of Evolution

I was doing some studying on creation for this Sunday morning as we look at day four of the Creation account in Genesis. I came across the following quote by C.S. Lewis regarding the accident of evolution:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collission, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an acdient too. If so, then all our present thoughts are accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. Adn this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. -Lewis, God on the Dock, 52-53

Lewis makes an excellent point. Evolution is built around an entire series of accidents. If everything is an accident, then our very thoughts are accidents. Therefore, how can I trust the accidental thoughts of a biochemist over the accidental thoughts of a factory worker? In one paragraph, Lewis raises an incredible challenge to the evolutionary worldview.

Weekly Recommendation: "Battle For the Beginning"

In youth during Sunday School, we have been discussing creation. Each week, we look at the next day of creation. Next Sunday, we will look at day 3. One of the main sources that I refer to in understanding what the Bible says about creation is John MacArthur's book, "Battle for the Beginning." MacArthur's goal is simple: lay out clearly what the Bible says about creation. The author is not concerned with dealing with all of the assumptions and arguments of evolution and other origins theories. Though certainly he dibunks evolution throughout the book, his goal is not to destroy the theory. MacArthur calls on believers to affirm what Scripture says.

One must respect MacArthur's goal here. While it is tempting to begin with science and show why the Bible remains relevant and accurate, MacArthur assumes Scripture's accuracy and truth and then shows how science has proven what the Bible has already declared.

MacArthur is a young earth creationists, as I am. Though he provides a number of arguments in favor of a young earth, that is not his concern. He is most concerned with the text of Scripture. It is impossible to make billions of years to fit the Biblical record. The world, according to Scripture, cannot be more than 10,000 years.

Though at this point, many would write MacArthur off as a lunatic and Bible thumper, fundamentalists who has completely lost his mind. But if you read his argument and if you know MacArthur's credentials, this is not the ramblings of a fool. MacArthur is well-read and his book is well research and should be taken seriously.

I encourage everyone wanting to know what the Bible has to say about this critical issue to give MacArthur a read. He has been a major influence in my life and I have devoured many of his books.