Archived Posts September 2006 » Page 6 of 6 | Acton PowerBlog

Blog author: kschmiesing
posted by on Thursday, September 7, 2006

An interesting debate is going on over at Mere Comments. The main thread has to do with the morality of the Bush Administration’s approval of over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill and the implications for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race. Leaving those issues aside, I was struck by a comment from “Daniel C.”, claiming that the problem really presents an “excellent case for dismantling the Food & Drug Administration.”

It’s a question worth raising. I don’t know enough about the history or current practice of the FDA to judge definitively one way or the other, but I know that there exists significant discontent with its role as (ostensibly) the nation’s guardian of food and drug safety. For example:

1. It constructs unreasonable obstacles to the delivery of medical technology.
2. It stifles pharmaceutical innovation because regulators are biased toward caution as opposed to risk.
3. Its evaluation process is distorted by rampant conflicts of interest on the part of the experts it employs to evaluate new products.

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Thursday, September 7, 2006

Seth Godin issued a call recently for marketers to take stock of their trade and embrace the moral aspects of their industry: “You’re responsible for what you sell. When you choose to sell it, more of it gets sold.”

I particularly like how Godin emphasizes personal responsibility. This is something that is not unique to a particular profession, of course, and is therefore a reality that constantly needs to be reiterated. “As marketers, we have the power to change things, and the way we use that power is our responsibility–not the market’s, not our boss’s. Ours,” he writes.

Indeed, the logic of the marketplace is not enough by itself. That’s true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the powerful and dominating attraction of sin.

“We’re responsible for what we sell and how we sell it. We’re responsible for the effects (and the side effects) of our actions, ” Godin states. “It is our decision. Whatever the decision is, you need to own it. If you can’t look that decision in the mirror, market something else.”

Godin’s analysis may not in itself be sufficient to arrive at a comprehensive and full-blown morality of the marketplace, but I think it’s a pretty darn good start, especially considering it comes as a call from within the profession.

Dr. Grabill can take heart…recognition of the natural law isn’t dead.

“A human brain trapped inside a mouse’s body — not a good idea,” says Anjana Ahuja in the UK Times.

Not convinced? Check out this piece of mine over at BreakPoint, “A Monster Created in Man’s Image.”

In the Introduction to an important new book by J. Budziszewski that engages four distinct traditions of evangelical political thought, Michael Cromartie observes: “While appreciative of the contributions of each of these thinkers [Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and John Howard Yoder], Budziszewski finds fault with each, to a greater or lesser degree, for failing to develop a systematic political theory as compelling as those offered by the secularist establishment. He suggests that evangelical political thought would be improved if it were informed by the tradition of natural law.” I couldn’t agree more. But I’d like to take this a step further, or, at the very least, in a slightly different direction, and one that I’m sure Budziszewski would also find complementary: evangelical bioethical thought.

There are some very good people and organizations at work in this field already, but, as with Protestant natural law thinking in general, evangelicals as a group must not only catch a vision of what’s at stake in today’s great bioethical issues but also rediscover the resources of the natural-law tradition that lie dormant within their own theological traditions. As Budziszewski states in relation to politics, but which applies perhaps more poignantly in the realm of bioethical debate, “Although evangelicals are rightly committed to grounding their political reflection in [special] revelation, the Bible provides insufficient materials for the task. This I have called the evangelical dilemma. The missing piece of this puzzle lies in the recognition that the Bible is only part of revelation.” The other part, and the one desperately needed at this point in time, is the general or natural revelation that God makes evident not only to believers but to all humankind.

In today’s commentary I attempt to alert evangelicals of the connection between IVF and the embryo “surplus” and to call for increased moral reflection by Protestants about IVF. Protestant ethicists, pastors, and lay people need to probe the moral issues surrounding IVF much more fully and to develop a moral theology that can be applied to the full range of currently contested bioethical issues.

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Wednesday, September 6, 2006

This article by Mary D. Gaebler, visiting assistant professor of theological ethics at Gustavus Adolphus College, “Eros in Benedict and Luther,” from the Journal of Lutheran Ethics argues, “Lutherans, insofar as they derive their theology from Luther, should welcome Pope Benedict’s Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est. Luther, I think, would find this latest word from the Vatican surprisingly congenial.” (HT: Mirror of Justice)

One of Gaebler’s main goals is refuting the interpretation of Luther characterized by the work of Anders Nygren, which radically dichotomizes the concepts of agape and eros. She asks whether Luther “categorically” rejects “the kind of self-love that Benedict points to in his use of the term eros? There is much in Luther’s work to suggest that he does not. My own reading points to a more Catholic Luther on this matter of eros, particularly in his mature work.”

The crux of the argument is whether, as Benedict states, “Fundamentally ‘love’ is a single reality, but with different dimensions. At different times one or [an]other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions [eros and agape] are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.”

Whereas Nygren argues that Luther finds no legitimate place for erotic love, Gaebler says that in Luther’s later and mature theology (during and after the 1520s), “Here we see the very interesting conflation between caring for others on the one hand, and preserving one’s own life on the other. No longer does the earlier “either/or” duality define the character of an action. No longer a matter of either self or neighbor, now both neighbor and self are addressed in God’s command to protect life.”

The strict and radical opposition and separation of agape and eros and the characterization of the former as divine and the latter as merely sinful is simply untenable. You can find great evidence for erotic elements of divine love, I think, in the covenant language of the Old Testament and the corresponding concept of chesed, or covenant-love. The Puritans certainly place a lot of emphasis on this and biblical wedding imagery.

In conclusion, I’d like to pass along this bit from Jonathan Edwards that seems to agree with both Luther and Benedict on this point (contra Nygren). It is taken from his Miscellanies (no. 301) and is titled “Man’s Nature, Self-Love, and Sin”: (more…)

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Acton in the News

Over recent days a number of Acton staff have authored op-eds in various print outlets. Here’s a rundown:

One respondent to my piece wrote me a missive that opened by inquiring whether I am “a religious nut or just a fat Republican?” Anyone who knows me can see the error of this question immediately: It is presented in “either/or” form instead of as a “both/and” proposition.

A number of these op-eds are based on material that originally appeared as installments of Acton Commentary. If you aren’t a subscriber to our free weekly email update, Acton News & Commentary, get the scoop on the latest Acton writing directly to your inbox by signing up here.

Almighty God our heavenly Father, you declare your glory and show forth your handiwork in the heavens and in the earth: Deliver us in our various occupations from the service of self alone, that we may do the work you give us to do in truth and beauty and for the common good; for the sake of him who came among us as one who serves, your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

–U.S. Book of Common Prayer, “For Vocation in Daily Work,” (1979), p. 261

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Friday, September 1, 2006

Check out Jeff Cornwall contra “entrepreneurial welfare” over at The Entrepreneurial Mind.

Charles Colson, recipient of the 2006 Faith & Freedom Award

In case you haven’t heard, mark your calendars and save the date for the Acton Institute’s Annual Dinner on October 26, 2006 in Grand Rapids. You can register to attend online here.

Charles W. Colson will deliver remarks on the topic, “War of the Worlds,” describing the great clash of civilizations between Christianity with Islam on the one hand and with secular naturalism on the other.

Mr. Colson is also this year’s recipient of the Faith & Freedom Award, first established in 2000, which “recognizes an individual who exemplifies commitment to faith and freedom through outstanding leadership in civic, business, or religious life.” More information on the award is available here.