I have been told by many women folk here in Holmes County, Ohio, that we have excellent charity stores and second-hand shops, as is often the case where large groups of plain people are living. We have had people from all around come to visit, taking extra time to drop by these stores. Apparently, people here like to keep things in top shape, so at the first sign of wear, it’s “out with the old and in with the new.”
Likewise, no farmer would disagree that seeing all their machinery run like a top, and all their livestock stay healthy, is a satisfying feeling. Since the time of Adam, the Lord has always made us that way—to …have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. –Gen 1:28
Having an opposite attitude is to be avoided. Jude exhorts us to beware of “certain men” who, within our midst, have “crept in unawares.” They live by the flesh and “despise dominion.” Two thousand years later, even in our overly casual society where “It’s all good” and we need to “Just chill,” the Lord still expects us to take seriously our calling to exercise God-given responsibility of dominion using Biblical principles in all that we do.
Does this dominion also extend to our own bodies? In Second Chronicles, Chapter 34, we can read of the wretched state of the Temple at the beginning of the reign of King Josiah, how he rebuilt it both physically with stone and timber—skillfully crafted by the artisans, and spiritually, by rediscovering and drinking in the Word of God. So too should we care for our bodies, as the Apostle Paul instructs us: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. –1Co 6:19-20
It is safe to say that judging by the multitude of nutritional supplements, chiropractors, doctors, and other various ancillary (supplemental) health care people and products, we make a good effort at keeping our physical temples well cared for and healthy. However, since we are all born with the curse of Adam, unlike machine parts that can simply be replaced, or a new machine purchased once the old one has run the full course of its life, we are faced with the reality that our body parts also have a practical “shelf life.” The older we get, the more apparent it is that life is very limited. The Bible says 70-80 years (–see Psa 90:10). (In America, in 2018, the average was 78.7 years. How little things have changed over 3 millennia later!)
I think we can all agree that God is primarily concerned about the spiritual temple, even more than the physical temple of our bodies. One doesn’t need to think hard to find godly men and women of today, and our spiritual forefathers of yesterday, who sacrificed and endured the destruction of their bodies, glorifying God, resulting in the cleansing of their souls and the future glorification of their bodies. Their plea was this: Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. –Psa 51:10
Christ himself endured the destruction of His physical body, stating, …Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. –Joh 2:19 In the resurrection, his body was regenerated. We also read in scripture, about another physical regeneration, in which the earth will give birth to her dead; where those who dwell in the dust [will] wake up and shout for joy! (–see Isa 26:19)
Yet through this all, when our bodies breakdown or wear out, we feebly attempt, with some limited success, a physical regeneration of our own. There is a whole field of study focusing on Regenerative Medicine. The actual word “regeneration” literally means to “redo genesis” by recreating a new body—quite a loft goal indeed!
Is there anything wrong with replacing broken parts (knees, hips and elbows), patching up broken pieces (bones and skin), and maintaining health in general (through good nutrition and physical activity)? Certainly not—it is how I make my living, advising and treating my patients! Yet like most things, even the pursuit of “good health” should give us pause to “count the costs” and exercise moderation—Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. –Php 4:5 For while the pursuit of physical health is a good thing, it is a blind pursuit without regard to the spiritual costs (as we discovered in our series on vaccines), that can result in leading us astray and away from God.
There are two ditches on this road to physical health, spiritual health, and our overall well-being. In the ditch on the one hand, we can be reckless with our health, allowing our bodily temple to decay prematurely. Job said of man: Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; –Job 14:5 So if we, through neglect, seek to cut those days short, are we not in defiance of God—seeking to short-circuit His perfect will for us? In the other ditch is the reckless and futile search for immortality—by seeking physical health at any cost. In doing so, is this not also an act of defiance? Paul reminds us: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: –Rom 5:12 In other words, due to sin, it is God’s plan for us to die physically (so that we may live eternally with Him).
Most readers, at this point would agree that both ends of the spectrum have this in common: they both neglect a person’s spiritual health, and they are both in a state of defiance toward God. So where am I going with this? Most Christians, who I know, do not pursue physical health at any cost. Bear with me then, as I would like to take the remainder of this article (and the next article) to give you a history of Regenerative Medicine—this “redoing of genesis.” Does it live up to its claims? Are there scams? What are the pitfalls? What does the future hold? Most importantly, how does it impact our spiritual health and our relationship with the Lord?
First, what exactly is Regenerative Medicine? As I mentioned previously, it literally means man’s efforts to “redo” genesis (origin, creation, or beginning). The term was first used as recently as the 1990s and is defined as the study and practice of “the replacement or regeneration of human cells, tissue, or organs, to restore or establish normal function.” In its short history, any and all means necessary to do this have been used.
It is different from Transplant Medicine in which whole organs are replaced but are still viewed as “foreign” by the receiving body. That is why strong anti-rejection medicines are needed for the rest of the individual’s life. It is also different from Orthopedic Medicine, in which hardware, such as screws, and titanium knees, for example, secure and replace warn out parts. Regenerative Medicine draws on the natural occurrence of certain organisms such as starfish, lizards, and lobsters, which are able to “regenerate” missing limbs and tails. In essence, the regenerated tissue is indistinguishable from the original, having few to no complications or side effects due to the fact that it is wholly integrated into that specific species’ host body. Sounds good doesn’t it?
This is not a new concept. Prometheus, in Greek mythology, was a “minor god,” who was punished by the head god “Zeus” (for “giving” fire to man), by having animals feast on his body, only to have his body regenerate the next day. A couple of thousand years later, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein novel was subtitled “The Modern Prometheus.” This book, written almost exactly 200 years ago, contains a strong warning about unrestrained science, and man’s reckless search for fleshly regeneration. Even so, it is easy to see that man has had a long history of desire to regenerate his body, just as a mechanic swaps out parts or a starfish grows a new arm.
Advances in anesthesia, pharmacology (antibiotics and anti-rejection medicines in particular), surgery and sterilization techniques led to milestones in medicine, such as the first kidney transplant in 1954 and the first bone marrow transplant in 1968. But transplants had limitations—some injured and damaged tissues or complex organs, such as a brain, could not simply be replaced. Furthermore, due to an aging population and the sheer demands for the large quantities needed of some tissues, such as skin for burn victims, coupled with a chronic shortage of proper donors, alternatives were needed. Also, the dark shadow of tissue rejection was ever present and needed to be dealt with.
It has long been known that while an unborn child is a unique human being, it is rare for such developing children to be rejected by his or her mother’s body. We have learned this is due to the fact that in developing fetuses, their cells do not have many unique identifiers. The older a person becomes, the more their cells have a unique look and identification—kind of like the same fingerprint on the surface of each and every cell in a person’s body. A person’s body “knows” what its own tissue’s “fingerprint” looks like, and it “knows” that what isn’t native is foreign and must be attacked. By using fetal tissue, there would be almost no chance of rejection, and no need for dangerous life-long anti-rejection medicine. The new tissue would be entirely assimilated—so it was thought. So, attempts were made at using fetal tissue to cure things like Addison’s Disease (adrenal tissue) in the 1920s and Diabetes (pancreatic tissue) starting in the 1930s. While up to 24 fetuses were used per transplant, they eventually proved to be unsuccessful.1
By the 1990s, there was a renewed interest in using fetal tissue. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, some scientists thought, if, by simply inserting some fetal pancreatic insulin-producing cells under one’s forearms, diabetes could be cured? The same goes for fetal thyroid transplants, adrenal transplants—simply an outpatient procedure, and done in a few minutes. What about things like brain tissue for Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s? The potential was seemingly limitless.
If that sounds somewhat macabre, there was an even more ominous side. It was shown experimentally in mice that one could successfully transplant fetal ovarian tissue.2 The idea was to transplant fetal ovarian tissue into infertile women (for example, survivors of childhood cancer in which the chemo rendered the girl infertile). This would sideline any “need” for IVF treatments. Imagine being a child born of a genetic mother that was aborted!
With the cultural abortion battles, there was an intense push to find a “cure.” Suppose there was a cure for Alzheimer’s or Diabetes? How many people would reject that cure if it came from fetal tissue? If they actually refused the treatment, how many of those people would voice their objection to abortion if a family member chose a curative (though unethical) treatment? If a parent of a diabetic child refused treatment, would it be considered child neglect, and would the state have grounds for forcibly treating the child or removing him or her from the home until treatment was received? In the end, one goal was that abortion would be justified in the minds of the population.
But something happened: The treatments didn’t work as planned in a significant number of patients. The treatments in a large number of Parkinson patients were actually described by the providing doctors as “catastrophic,” “absolutely devastating,” and “a real nightmare”.3 Instead of the classic muscle rigidity associated with Parkinson’s Disease, came jerking heads, flinging arms, and writhing bodies. The tissue did not “know” enough when to turn itself off, overproducing neurohormones, even forming tumors of skin, hair, and cartilage.4 Moreover, the tissue that “took” eventually died out by the same process that caused the Parkinson’s disease.5 The treatments were obviously stopped.
But at about this time, in the late 1990s, techniques were discovered that enabled researchers to isolate, and grow in great numbers, a certain cell called a “stem cell” from human embryos. Think of these rapidly growing stem cells as forming the stem of a plant. It is through them that the other types of cells are derived (leaves, flower, and fruit). These embryos, uniquely human, were obtained from “leftover” fertility treatments in which conception was initiated in a laboratory petri (glass) dish and allowed to grow to a cluster size. The desired cells were taken, and the rest destroyed. (In essence, these were “micro” abortions.)
Fetal tissue did not work as expected, partly because it was already too specialized and too “pre-programmed,” but also too impure, too costly, and too labor intensive—necessitating the harvesting of tissue from numerous aborted babies with a microscope and tweezers. Some scientists thought, why not obtain these stem cells, “program” them into the desired type of cell, and grow them to however many are needed?
In the next issue, I will tell you where the research currently stands, where there have been successes and failures, and how Christians can ethically navigate the turbulent waters of these times. It is amazing how the Lord opens doors, using the wonders of science, to create ethical alternatives for those who remain faithful to Him and His ways. It will be exciting to explain to you, how these “alternatives” have become the main focus of research and treatment for believers and unbelievers alike.
But before I leave you, I’d like to mention that over the years, I’ve had a number of people remark that these babies are being aborted anyway, so why not get some benefit from the tragedy, wouldn’t that be redemptive in a way?
Here is my (short list) of reasons why it would be unbiblical for Christians to benefit from unethical vaccines … and now fetal tissue treatments:
1. The act of redemption cannot be separated from restitution and reconciliation. The very act of using fetal tissue only encourages further and expanded exploitation—just the opposite of restitution and reconciliation (where there needs to be a resolution to no longer repeat the sin). History has borne out that there is a multiplication of the sin, not the reduction. Where there was once one cell line, there are now dozens. Scientists are emboldened to do further, and even more unethical research, especially if there is no objection.
2. The very word “redeem” means to purchase back something which was originally was yours, but now has become lost. The body of the unborn child was never ours to begin with, never ours to give, and never ours to profit from.
3. Redemption always involves a sacrifice—of self. How can anyone sacrifice self by volunteering the body of another? (Heb 9:12) John 15:13 says, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Some Christians are keen to use this verse to justify going to war. While there is definitely self-sacrifice in going to war, the goal is to make the enemy lay down THEIR lives. The utilitarian use of fetal tissue follows the same line of thinking, except that there is NO self-sacrifice in exploiting the body of an aborted baby.
4. While Jesus’s redemption of mankind turned something horrid and ugly into something that glorifies God, it was an act of sanctification through holiness and righteousness. Regarding this issue, I can’t think of an act further removed from sanctification, holiness and righteousness … only opportunism. –see Psa 111:9 and 1Co 1:30
5. We cannot hope for the deliverance of God from evil … by participating in and benefiting from evil. We are forgiven our trespasses, only by forgiving, not by co-conspiring, only by repaying good for evil. –see Mat 5 & 6
6. God finds the shedding of innocent blood abhorrent (He “hates” it!). –see Pro 6:17 We can only please God and can only receive atonement by purging ourselves from any association with this guilt—not by participating in it. –see Deu 21:8, 9 Can anyone imagine utilizing products such as soap and lamp shades made from holocaust victims who would have “died anyway”?
7. When Saul destroyed the Amalekites, he kept the best of the loot—ostensibly as an offering to God (at least he said so when he was challenged by Samuel). –see 1 Sam 15 Why did God utterly reject His anointed king over this? Could it be that he did not want His chosen to profit or benefit from evil—even in the destruction of that evil? Could it be that by bringing the bounty of the wicked into the midst of his chosen people, His people risked becoming desensitized to that very same wickedness, and so became corrupted themselves? Samuel simultaneously wept and grieved over Saul, crying out to the Lord. If it is not us, then who will weep for us and for a fallen generation?
8. The same could be said concerning the judgement of Achan’s secreted treasure following the defeat at Ai. In summary, if there is any personal benefit to be had following a tragedy or a judgement of another, the best way to tell if it is legitimate, is if the details are not cloaked in secrecy. (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. –Eph 5:9-11
9. There are alternatives—why lend justification to unethical practices? On the issue of pursuing alternative vaccines, it is a difficult process, but not impossible to do. Following Christ often times follows the more arduous path, rather than the path of least resistance. The example of our faithful forefathers bears this out.
Endnotes:
- Federlin K et al., –Recent achievements in experimental and clinical islet transplantation. Diabet Med 8, 5, 1991
- https://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/06/us/fetal-ovary-transplant-is-envisioned.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/08/us/parkinson-s-research-is-set-back-by-failure-of-fetal-cell-implants.html
- Folkerth RD, Durso R, –Survival and proliferation of nonneural tissues, with obstruction of cerebral ventricles, in a parkinsonian patient treated with fetal allografts, Neurology 46, 1219, 1996
- Braak H, Del Tredici K, –Assessing fetal nerve cell grafts in Parkinson’s disease, Nature Medicine 14, 483, 2008
0 Comments