The 1998 Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Convention asked the Committee on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), (Res. 3-15B), to provide "a study document to help the Church, on the basis of the Word of God, make informed ethical judgments concerning cloning and attendant issues." Christian Faith and Human Beginnings represents the second part of the CTCR response to this request. The first, What Child is This? Marriage, Family and Human Cloning dealt with the issue of reproductive cloning. Christian Faith and Human Beginnings seeks to focus on what it calls pre-implantation human life. This designation refers to the baby that has been conceived but has not yet been implanted in the wall of the uterus.

This is an inadequate and confusing document that misses the mark on two counts of its assignment. It does not help the Church, because, on the whole, its argument is not based on the Word of God. Instead of reporting, on the basis of clear Scripture passages, and simple reason, that God creates each individual human at the moment of conception, the report leaves an impression of doubt. Instead of a clear "Thus saith the Lord" we end up with the impression that the case is so weak that it ought to be taken before the court of human wisdom. Most readers will be put off by the language and structure of this report. The lack of the use of Scripture and the dependence on philosophical categories, (e.g. "Inherent Indicator Approaches" and "Relational/Historical Approaches") will render this document of little help to most in making "informed, ethical judgments."

The general tone of the document appears to give credence to the arguments of those who do not believe that pre-implantation human life should be protected. The first major section of the report is entitled, "The Riddle of Human Life." The use of the word riddle leaves an impression of uncertainty as to when and how life begins. The authors seem overly concerned with giving opponents of life their say. The report presents their arguments but does not counter them.

"There is disagreement not only within contemporary culture but also among Christians on questions about where and how pre-implantation embryonic cells in laboratories should be accorded protection rather than being discarded in clinics or destroyed or compromised by research" (p. 7).

Such a statement—if not countered with a clear statement of definitive answer, (which is not done)—will plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the readers that will not be stricken down by the rest of the report.

The authors repeatedly refer to "complexity and uncertainty that surrounds current debate on the status of embryos" (footnote 68). At times it sounds like the authors of the report are uncertain whether or not the embryo ought to be protected.

"While we agree with those who maintain that pre-implantation human life should be fully protected, we acknowledge that the relative newness of our engagement with pre-implantation human life and our consequent unfamiliarity with embryonic life keep the arguments from achieving a character of transparent obviousness" (p. 36).

The CTCR here declares that the Word of God does not make the value of newly conceived human life obvious. This is not helpful.

That being said, the conclusions of the report are laudable in most cases. Although meekly stated, the Commission does conclude "Upon examination, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations has remained convinced that both biblical and philosophical perspectives support the wisdom of protecting pre-implantation embryos from the time of conception." (p. 10)

However, the arrival at and the presentation of the arguments in this report leaves much to be desired. For example, the first statement of the conclusion that pre-implantation embryos ought to be protected is left to a footnote (4). It is not until page 30 that they reveal their method of operation, (a forensic method that will leave many Christians wondering "Where’s the Scripture?"). They propose that since many "thoughtful Christians" disagree on Scripture and science that we ought to adopt a "burden of proof" approach to the argument. The argument runs like this:

1. Everyone agrees that God cares for human life.

2. Since there is doubt whether pre-implantation embryos are human in every degree the burden of proof lies with those who would seek to destroy such embryos.

3. None of the arguments for destruction attain the strength to bear the burden of proof.

4. Therefore, we ought to protect these lives (p. 42).

We might reasonably expect a more forceful and more theological argument from a Commission on Theology. This line of reasoning appears to be adopted for the sake of dialogue with those who disagree.

"We readily acknowledge the puzzling and complex features of the issues we are addressing, and we offer this moral guidance in a spirit of humility. We trust that our fairness in weighing the competing arguments will be evident, and will elicit equally fair responses from those whose weighing of the arguments leads them to different conclusions" (p. 10).

This hidden agenda was not part of the original charge given by the convention in Resolution 3-15B, but shapes the entire report. This agenda is not helpful to the Church. The Church is not looking for an opening salvo to a dialogue, but a clear statement of God’s law.

Furthermore, this entire line of "burden of proof" reasoning unravels at their own hand.

"As we noted above, people who reason this way are implicitly claiming that the burden of proof lies on those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research and would deny potentially life-saving therapies to people in need. They say that unless we can provide convincing arguments in support of protecting pre-implantation embryos, then we have not met the burden of proof and the harvesting of stem cells from embryos should be permitted" (p. 37).

The "burden of proof" argument cuts both ways and the CTCR does not, cannot, answer this argument. It basically eviscerates the entire document. Without reference to a clear Word of God, this issue will remain "ambiguous." Any line of reasoning based on ambiguity and subjective criteria ultimately places all human life, regardless of age, in danger.

One more specific fault must be addressed. The CTCR seems to be "puzzled" (p. 41) by the fact that in nature "sixty percent" (p. 31) or up to "three quarters" (p. 25) of fertilized eggs do not develop. They are unwilling to argue against those who say that such loss indicates "that nature itself seems to relate to pre-implantation human life differently than it does to implanted life." The argument seems to be that since many of them die naturally we are free to kill some of those that survive (p. 40).

It is difficult to see how a high percentage of death in this, or any stage of life, can be used to argue concerning the nature of that life. On the contrary, it demonstrates the vulnerability of life at this stage, suggesting that it ought to be carefully protected. This ultimately becomes a subjective argument. At what percentage of loss in a certain population does the human nature of a population come into question? Since the incidence of death in human beings is 100 percent one might argue that we can kill whomever we wish.

When the CTCR finally does get to examining specific Scriptural passages it mitigates the force of those passages with the familiar refrain that "not all Christians agree" that these passages can be applied to the case of newly conceived human life (p. 34). Once again the report returns to legalese by suggesting that even though these passages may be debatable, the Scripture reveals God’s care for human life, and that His care casts "reasonable doubt" on the destruction of newly conceived human life (p. 34).

In the end, the report argues that we should not destroy these embryos (p. 44) and that in vitro fertilization ought to take place only with the provision that all embryos be given a chance to live (p. 47). For that we can be thankful, and hope that some readers will be persistent and perceptive enough to dig this conclusion out from under the dross that lies heavily about it.