PLAYING GOD, PART I
AUTHORITY AND WILL
…let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. – Genesis 1:26b-27
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. – Genesis 9:6
Humankind’s remarkable progress in technology has brought many to lament that we might be “playing God.” This concern arises with issues of control over life, particularly the manipulation of genetics. Scientists “create” genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs), while doctors, drugs, and machines foster new ways to prolong life, increasing problematic life-support scenarios. Some nations practice an aggressive euthanasia (mercy killing) while others go even into eugenics (elimination of undesirable ethnicities or traits in a human population). In more recent times, genetic and reproductive technologies have brought us in vitro fertilization, the potential for “designer babies”, the move toward stem-cell organ growth, insertion of full DNA in cells (leading to the potential for cloning), DNA mapping and the associated dilemmas of knowing too much, transgenics (the insertion of one kind of organism’s DNA into another), xenotransplantation (the use of one kind of organism’s organs or tissues in another), and so on.
Yet concerns over “playing God” are not limited to control over life, but over the planet itself. Some contend that we have overused the planet, and in response to the belief in man-caused global warming, a portion of these respond by suggesting that we actively engineer the planet by dispersing vast quantities of particles into the atmosphere. (Actively using known particulate pollutants to “correct” a perceived warming due to CO2—which is not a pollutant—seems to me the epitome of irrationality and futility; But I will save that discussion for another time.) The “playing God” accusation has even been leveled against constructing dams or harnessing nuclear energy.
So, is that what we are doing: “playing God”? To examine this, we need to look at what “playing God” might mean. Clearly, if someone is making this accusation, that person acknowledges God, and the fact that that God’s authority and our authority differ. Not everyone, and few practicing, influential scientists, openly admit that God exists. So for these persons, “playing God” is not a problem in and of itself. For them, the problem is in violating agreed-upon moral or ethical codes, or in simply acting rashly without considering the consequences. They wouldn’t say we are really “playing God”, yet would advocate for caution. Yet still many acquiesce to a hands-off approach, since their worldview sees progress primarily as technology, with an underlying bias of the evolutionary trial-and-error mess.
Yet for those who do acknowledge a God who has authority unique to ours, the issue is to define the boundaries of our authority. “Playing God” would thus mean to do something that God should only be able to do, if He would do it at all. For example, I discussed in “Created to Be Inhabited” the matter of God’s authority over the heavens (everything beyond Earth): He named the stars, while Adam named the creatures and was given dominion over the Earth. This, in addition to significant issues of practicality and cost, leads me to believe that colonizing the Moon or Mars is not only a misguided idea, but “playing God.” He is the one who determines places to be inhabited (see Isaiah 45:18 and Acts 17:26).
Yet how
does this bear upon the issues of control over life? Again, we must address the issue as to what authority has been given us, and we must also consider the entity of individual human will. Regarding authority: Humankind has been given dominion over the vegetation and creatures of Earth, but not over other humans in the general sense. In a particular way, however, institutions such as governments, the church, and the family may indeed exhibit authority over other humans: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1). So, we must see all authority as delegated, beginning with God. Regarding free will: We see in Scripture the remarkable value of independent human will in each soul—so much so that we find ourselves in a fallen state due to the disobedience of the first man and woman, and we find ourselves with opportunity for the free gift of salvation simply by submitting that will to the lordship and saving grace of Christ. God respects the authority He has given us, and he respects the will He has given us. This is why many go on their way apart from Him.
So, while we might have the capacity to affect another human being’s life (and even the conditions surrounding one’s genetic beginnings), we do not have the authority to do so, or to discard such a life through abortion or euthanasia, without sound-minded consent of that individual (which is obviously impossible with a developing embryo). And in the matter of institutional authority, we must consider both the nature of the institution, and how this relates to individual human will. Let’s look at some specific examples:
In vitro fertilization has been called upon frequently in recent decades to bring about a “natural” childbirth, by assisting in the fusing of sperm and egg outside the uterus. In the process, to increase the odds (and profitability for the institution, for sure), a woman’s hormones are augmented so as to increase egg production. This, in itself, is no ethical violation, though it produces significant emotional and physical stresses. The problem lies in the reality that multiple eggs are fertilized,but few blastocysts (early developing humans) are selected for implantation, and even fewer “take” in the uterine lining. The fact that this might lead to excessive multiple births is not inherently wrong, though perhaps unwise; the fact that developmental problems and mortality of “successful” implantations is significantly higher than accepted rates in other medical decisions is also not necessarily wrong, but perhaps an indiscriminate practice; yet the fact that a large percentage of developing humans are discarded or indefinitely frozen—this is a violation of our given authority.
Euthanasia is often defended for its mercy toward the suffering of a human, though “mercy” can be a cover for sinister motives. Suffering, in our fallen world, is unavoidable, and creates this dilemma. To what degree do we interfere with “natural” processes? To answer this, I think we must differentiate between that which is originally natural, and that which is degenerated natural. Here, a Christian worldview is indispensable. It is God-pleasing to actively bring restoration to a fallen creation, a precursor to the ultimate healing that will eventually come about: “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21). Some of our interference in nature—medicine, for example—is necessitated by the fallen state of nature. And since people die, we often have to deal with how they die. And here, the issue of free will surfaces again. When euthanasia or larger-scale eugenics is dictated against the will of a person, this is wrong. This has nothing to do with whether a person is a burden to society, or whether his or her ethnicity is desirable. It has to do with what the person wants. A dying person has a right to die with dignity; a person in pain has a right to have that pain relieved, or even a right to evaluate the quality of their life (such as in a paralyzed state). Are there grey areas in these matters? Yes, for sure, but those must be decided between that person and his or her Maker, not by another.
Can government override human will regarding life? For example, should governmental authority force one to be euthanized against his or her will? I think not. The authority granted to government is necessitated by the fallen state of humanity. Government provides a mitigating influence against society’s propensity toward evil and selfishness; it does not exist to decide what is best for an individual. As such, governmental authority, as seen historically, must often take a backseat to greater and more original realms of authority.
Family, on the other hand, is an original institution, not merely a post-Fall measure. When addressing divorce, Jesus stated of marriage, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not manseparate” (Matthew 19:6). And He established order within this: “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:23-24) “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). Consider this scenario: If a child is capable of pregnancy, but has not the maturity, capacity, or resources to raise a child responsibly, do the parents have a right to restrict sexual behavior, require birth control for a sexually active child, or further (perhaps if the child is mentally ill), have anti-fertility drugs applied so as to make pregnancy impossible? Yes, I think so. Yet this would not be a governmental decision but a parental one. And if parents do not see eye-to-eye on the matter, the father has authority to make the call (assuming he is actively participating as a father, which sadly to say, is not often the case).
Xenotransplantation is another matter for consideration. Is it as violation of the “natural” to have a pig’s heart valve used as a replacement for a human valve? Would it be any more “natural” to use a synthetically-created valve (which, as it turns out, is not as effective or reliable)? Again, we are dealing with the distinction between the originally natural and degenerated natural. To try and fuse human and pig genetics would go against the originally natural distinction of the created “kind,” as we now understand that DNA is the primary caretaker of such distinctions. But to use a pig’s valve for the greater value of sustaining human life is an issue of actively working against the degenerated natural. If such transplantation blesses a human life, and if that person wills such a procedure, this is not “playing God” in any negative sense, but rather acting humanely.
Lastly, we consider cloning. The cloning of humans bears some of the same ethical problems as in vitro fertilization, as viable human beings are inevitably discarded in the process. And even if human cloning could avoid human mortality, it is genetic modification (transgenics, in particular) involving other human lives that have already been initiated, and, as in in vitro mortality or abortion, “cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8, NIV). Cloning of animals, on the other hand, is within our authority, and since originally natural forms of cloning indeed exist, we can move forward with some confidence that success is attainable. Nonetheless, we would do well to consider health and m
ortality issues and weigh the real suffering of God’s creatures against our motives.
If “playing God” means manipulating the creation beyond the authority given to us, and in violation of human will (“playing God” in a matter that He wouldn’t act in the first place), then it is indeed wrong. The problem is not so much in our available technologies, but in 1) oppressive or greedy motives in their application, and 2) the evolutionary lack of discrete distinction between human life and other life. Yet if we are simply mitigating the effects of a degenerated creation—with respect for individual human will in the process—then we are not “playing God” in any negative sense, but acting in line with our dominion mandate.
There is, however, a positive aspect to “playing God.” As creatures made in the image of God, and as believers committed to being his ambassadors on the Earth, we should actually desire to “play God” in the sense of fulfilling his purposes here. We want to help a fallen humanity that often shows no discretion when humans “play God” in the negative sense, and help a fallen humanity that actually disdains God for “playing” Himself! In the second part of this essay, I aim to address this positive side of “playing God.”
© 2010 Chard Berndt
All Scriptures NKJV unless otherwise noted.