 | Dr. John Click, has been the Pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church for 27 years now he is the pastor emeritus. He’s a graduate of Baylor University with a BA and Southwestern Seminary with a BD. He received his DMin at Midwestern Seminary. He has served in numerous positions in the Southern Baptist Convention, including: President of the Kansas/Nebraska Convention, Executive Committee of SBC, North American Mission Board, International Mission Board, and Houston Baptist University Board. He has traveled to preach in Europe, Central and South America and the Far East. Dr. Click is the founder and first President of Harvest Communications, which is a TV production company specializing in producing teaching materials for Para- Church organizations. You may contact him for comments or questions by e-mail at: Jcclick99@aol.com. |
Religion
2007-07-01 16:13:00
Is cloning wrong?
Our lunch group is composed of fellow employees (some Christians and some not) at one of our city’s manufacturing firms. We talk about every topic imaginable. The other day ‘cloning’ was brought up. Most of us who are Christians knew it was wrong, but when asked why, none of us could give any good reasons that the others would accept. I thought perhaps the forum of clerics you have might help.
You may find this strange, but I will base my answer more on Aldous Huxley’s book:”Brave New World”, than on the Bible! This is because there was no such thing as cloning when the Bible was written while Huxley, a biological scientist, could see it coming and realized its dangers.
In Brave New World, which was a prediction of a future time, Huxley anticipated what governments would do when cloning was available to them. Children would no longer be made by couples, but the government would choose those who would be donors for making children.
The “clones” would not be singular, but rather a number of identicals would be grown in bottles and “decanted” when they were ready to live without life support. Since they had no parents, the government took care of them in large children’s homes where they were taught whatever they would need to know in order to serve society. “Mother” was almost a dirty word, since it referred to the vulgar child-bearing ways of the past. Sex was available, but care was taken to avoid pregnancy. (Read the book!)
Huxley’s view of cloning may be extreme, although if it is possible, some tyrant may do it. In any case, cloning is anti-family. Possibly, some childless couples would choose cloning of one of the couple. This is the usual argument for cloning. But most likely cloning would be used by a single woman or man to get an offspring without a family. The Biblical view of family was given in the very first chapter of the Bible. This is the natural view and is virtually universal in the world: a child is to have a father and a mother! Cloning cannot give a child two parents!
It avoids a two parent necessity. But all studies show that a child suffers from not having both male and female involved in its nurture. Cloning tends to ignore nurture...and people could pick a child from any donor they wish.
When a couple have children, none are copies of one parent.
Children are often surprises.
Most geniuses did not come from genius parents....they tend to be unpredictable. Some combination from parents produce exceptional kids! Cloning would avoid these happy surprises. The most beautiful girl I ever knew came from parents who were actually ugly!
Many exceptional musicians had parents with no musical interest. Some of our Presidents, including Lincoln, had quite common parents.
Do we want only “copies”? Would multiple-copies be permitted?
It’s always a temptation: a basketball team of 5 Michael Jacksons! Michael 1, Michael 2, etc. How many of us are egotistical enough to choose our own clone?
