Prior to these issues, American society was already inundated with beginning-of-life decisions. Should we, or should we not, prevent conception? Is it worth the cost to do surgery on the child in utero? When we have difficulty conceiving, should we resort to in vitro fertilization? If so, what about all those unused embryos? What about the propriety of using genetic material from donors? If a child is not the preferred sex, or if there is an indication of a handicapping condition, should we abort? This is but a sampling of the questions many in this generation must answer. Unfortunately, most adults having to make such decisions are younger, isolated from intergenerational ties and strong moral traditions, and emotionally highly invested. Is there any guidance for our time?

TWO LANGUAGES AND GOD

When the early Church was seeking to define and describe the relationship between Israel's God and Jesus Christ, she was led to the language of begetting. The other available option was the language of making. When considering God and Jesus, the early Church saw such a great difference between these two languages that she decisively affirmed one and rejected the other. This became evident in the Nicene Creed: Jesus was "begotten, not made" by God the Father. What, we should ask, is suggested by this emphatic distinction?

The language of making uses the image of the craftsman. From his natural gifts and acquired knowledge, the craftsman makes something different from himself. The item he creates is a product. It is something less than its maker, and it is subject to his will and whim. Owning the product, the maker may deploy or destroy it however and whenever he wills. The language of making always connotes this radical difference and inequality between the maker and the made. For this reason the early Church found this language inadequate and improper for describing the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. (However, the Church did, in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, find this language helpful and precise in describing God the Father as the "maker of heaven and earth.")

So the early Church adopted the alternative language, the language of begetting. John wrote in his Gospel that God "gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16, KJV). Earlier, John reminded his readers that "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (1:18, KJV). This same language proved ideal for the Council of Nicea: Jesus was "eternally begotten of the Father" and "begotten, not made."

The language of begetting communicates something quite different than the language of making. To be sure, as what is made is different from its maker, so the begotten is different from the one who begets. But that is where the similarity between these languages ends. For unlike the product that is made, the begotten is of the same nature and status, and equal to, the begetter. Thus the Nicene Creed declares that Jesus is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God...of one Being with the Father." St. Augustine, reflecting upon the meaning of begetting, wrote: "We believe, we maintain, we faithfully preach, that the Father begat the Word...the only-begotten Son, one as the Father is one, eternal as the Father is eternal, and equally with the Father, supremely good..." (City of God, XI, 24). This could be said of one born. It could not be said of something made or manufactured.

Dehumanization serves certain ends. The making of "pre-implantation embryos" for cloning research seems as proper as the discarding of the "products of conception." But notice: in each case, the language of making empowers and authorizes the makers to do whatever they will with the made. The makers are, after all, by definition, more than that which they make. Thus, the language of making covers a multitude of sins.

The language of begetting changes how one sees the moral conscience. It humanizes. It reveals a child, not a product. Begetting reveals people to be procreators of equals, not makers of things that are disposable at will. According to this language, we beget babies. We do not make them. Yes, the begotten is different from the ones who beget. That is, the begotten is neither the father nor the mother. But the begotten shares the parents' nature. Sharing the parents' nature, the begotten is a human being, a child, and not a product. The human person of any age is our equal—not to be demeaned, not to be commodified, not to be sold on a medical market.

The 2000 General Conference of The United Methodist Church, which took place in Cleveland, OH, has come and gone. During most of General Conference, Lifewatch and its concerns were well represented. Kim Turkington of Lexington, KY, who is the Lifewatch Outreach Coordinator, Cindy Evans of Holts Summit, MO, and your editor each participated in the conference for four or five days.

We are thankful to report that the 2000 General Conference changed The Book of Discipline's paragraph on abortion. To be specific, a sentence opposed to partial-birth abortion was added. This is an important development, which will be examined at greater length in the September 2000 Lifewatch.

Cardinal O'Connor was dedicated to the Gospel of Life, to the dignity of every human life, in a glorious way. He routinely witnessed to the Gospel of Life from his pulpit at St. Patrick's Cathedral, before banks of media microphones, and in various pro-life marches. He willingly carried on a public argument, regarding life and abortion, with the then-Governor Mario Cuomo. He gladly contributed one of his sermons to The Right Choice: Pro-Life Sermons (Abingdon, 1997). And he offered the services of the Archdiocese of New York to care for any woman, with child, who felt abandoned by others and tempted by abortion. (By the way, his offer inspired Lifewatch to develop and promote our ministerial vision of The Sheltering Church Movement.)

But there is another reason we should bring up Cardinal O'Connor. He presented a glorious example of what a bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ says and does. His episcopal example is one to be followed—even by bishops in The United Methodist Church.

Thank God for the wonderful, courageous life and ministry of John Cardinal O'Connor. He was, is, and will be a force for the Gospel in the Roman Catholic Church, in the Church catholic, and throughout the world. General Conference was truly ecumenical and wise to pass a resolution which acknowledged the greatness and the goodness of John Cardinal O'Connor.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CHURCH

Back in March, the General Board of Discipleship distributed an issue of Perspective contains a thoughtful article, "Honoring the Dialogue," by Dr. Ezra Earl Jones, who is the General Secretary of the aforementioned board. Basically, the article concerns how The United Methodist Church should respond to the denomination's conflict and controversy over homosexuality.

Dr. Jones contends, rightly in this editor's humble opinion, that homosexuality is not distracting The United Methodist Church from its primary mission and ministry, from the "essence of the gospel." Instead, he believes that "our resolution of the deep division brought about by this issue is part of our primary mission." And this is Dr. Jones' proposal for resolution: "We center our lives in the heart of God. We do so in the company of one another. We continue the dialogue. We honor the dialogue; and dwelling in mystery, we wait for undeserved light." And he concludes, as he often concludes his column, with this challenge: "Think about it!" In what follows, we will take up his challenge .

CREATING THE CHURCH

Dr. Jones assumes that the Church, when confronted with difficult matters, must either dialogue or teach. Then he proceeds to point the Church toward dialogue and away from teaching. In pointing the Church away from teaching, he presumes that: either the Church does not have teaching on the contested issue; or, if such teaching does exist, the Church should simply bracket it or ignore it. His bottom line is this: the Church should just dialogue. Dr. Jones' vision suggests that all parties to the Church's dialogue have equally valid perspectives and positions; thus, all are equally welcome to the table. So, let all come to the Church's public square, and let the dialogue on homosexuality continue and continue indefinitely, he encourages. This, according to Dr. Jones, will hold The United Methodist Church together.

RECEIVING THE CHURCH

This, certainly, is one vision of the Church. It might be called the liberal Protestant vision of the Church that seems to thrive especially in liberal democratic cultures, such as the United States. Unfortunately, the liberal Protestant vision of the Church is not the vision of the Church given in the Bible, the creeds, and the Great Tradition. Reverend Richard John Neuhaus describes this greater vision of the Church: "As is said in the Nicene Creed, 'We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.' That reality encompasses doctrine, ministry, liturgy, and a rule of life. Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day." (First Things, March 2000) Again, according to Rev. Neuhaus, the Church is to be identified with the Great Tradition, with a truthful tradition.

Along the same lines, The Articles of Religion define and describe the Church in this more congregational way: "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men [sic] in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." (Article XIII-Of the Church, The Book of Discipline, Paragraph 62)

According to Rev. Neuhaus and to the Articles of Religion, the Church really has teaching. Neuhaus ties the Church's teaching to the Great Tradition, and Article XIII ties the Church teaching to "the pure Word of God." In both cases, this teaching is presumed to be truthful. In both cases, the Church's teaching is presumed to be given—by God, through Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and through the Great Tradition.

Again, the Church has teaching. Therefore, the Church does not have have to run around and come up with its own teaching on fundamental issues. Nor does the Church have to dialogue endlessly about various matters. Rather, the Church's privilege and duty is to receive the teaching (from the Great Tradition and the Word of God), be informed by the teaching, be formed by the teaching, and transmit the teaching in word and deed.

This vision of the Church and its teaching applies, of course, to the issue of homosexuality. The Church indeed has truthful teaching on homosexuality. Our privilege and our duty is to receive, know, live, and pass on this teaching. To be sure, that is not easy. It is difficult, especially when that teaching is under question, perhaps even under challenge or assault. Still, the Church must teach, live, and transmit what she knows to be true about homosexuality.

Because the Church has teaching, and teaching about homosexuality, she must also be in dialogue. It is not enough for the Church to offer its teaching and then walk away from those who have questions or disagreements. Therefore, the Church patiently and lovingly enters dialogue with those who question and/or disagree. In dialogue, the Church engages. In dialogue, the Church listens. The Church tries to find common ground. The Church learns from those who dissent. But also the Church tries to persuade those in dissent to convert to the truthfulness of her given teaching.

Again, Dr. Ezra Earl Jones poses a choice for the Church: dialogue or teach. That is a false choice. Both should be attempted. First, the Church should teach. Then, the Church should dialogue. In our time, to dialogue without teaching is to pretend that there is no Christian truth about homosexuality. To teach without dialogue is to lack the Christian love well described in I Corinthians 13.

THAT TELECONFERENCE

On Easter Tuesday, April 25th, a satellite teleconference was broadcast across the United States. Sponsored by The Iliff School of Theology and United Methodist Communications, in cooperation with the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries and the United Methodist Publishing House, the teleconference was titled "Does God Care How we Make Babies? —Ethical Concerns about Reproductive Choices, Cloning and Abortion." The four-hour event featured many bright ethical and theological thinkers from The United Methodist Church and beyond. It was based, in large part, on the book The Befuddled Stork: Helping Persons of Faith Debate Beginning-of-Life Issues, which is edited by Sally B. Geis and Donald E. Messer. This teleconference was interactive: it welcomed callers and their questions into the discussion.

Most of the teleconference was based on this unstated belief: the Church has little, if any, solid, definitive teaching about "how we make babies." Therefore, it is up to the state to establish public policies regarding the making of babies; within these rather wide legal boundaries, are individuals who must decide for themselves what they think best in the making of babies. Again, the teleconference downplayed Church teaching and referred the matters at hand to state action and to individual decision-making.

For several callers, this way of approaching these matters evoked thoughts of past programs in eugenics. Panelists admitted that, under the banner of eugenics, governments in the past had done some very nasty things. Now, in the United States, in their heated rush to achieve designer people, individuals acting according to their own lights are doing some very nasty things. In both instances, the Church is assumed to have no authoritative, instructive teaching.

This fixation on the state and the individual was especially illustrated by the comments by Dr. J. Philip Wogaman, the Senior Pastor at Foundry United Methodist Church of Washington, DC. Discussing abortion, Dr. Wogaman discussed abortion primarily as a matter of public policy and individual choice. He seemed to give very limited place to Church teaching on abortion.

Dr. Sondra Ely Wheeler, a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary, saw things quite differently than Dr. Wogaman. She spoke eloquently of the Church (and the Synagogue) having a great and grand tradition of ethical understanding. The Church's ethical tradition, she claimed, describes the deep meanings of mother, father, child, family, community, and so on. In other words, the Church understands the truth about humanity. With this truth in mind, the Church can then engage the challenges of the various "reproductive technologies" and judge them accordingly. Furthermore, it might be added that, with her ethical tradition in mind, the Church can also engage the politics surrounding these technologies. But the Church's first duty and privilege is to be formed and informed by her own ethical teaching.

Dear Editor:

I will take a minute to reinforce what you said about Matthew 7:1-2 in the recent issue of Lifewatch ("The Failure to Judge," 3/l/00).

(1) The speaker who utters this statement [that is, Jesus] does a whole heck of a lot of judging. It would be bizarre for the Jesus of Matthew, who so often debates, disagrees, disputes, criticizes, and, yes, condemns, to say, "Do not judge," in the sense popularly indicated. And of course such a reading would put these verses at odds not only with the rest of Matthew but also with the rest of the New Testament and the Old Testament, where prophets and apostles and others criticize and condemn the behavior and beliefs of others all the time.

(2) Matthew 7:6 is important. "Do not give dogs what is holy"—originally a priestly rule about sacrificial meat, but here used metaphorically—fits very nicely into its present setting. Matthew 7:1-5 has commanded that there be not too much severity. Matthew 7:6 follows up by saying that there should not be too much laxity. That is, the text anticipates a problem and searches for a balance, for a moral symmetry. So the principles in Matthew 7:1-5 are not to be abused. They do not eliminate the use of critical faculties when it comes to sacred concerns. As Matthew 18:15-20 shows, it is sometimes necessary to deal with the faults of others.

This interpretation admittedly remains general, and it is possible that Matthew had something more specific in mind. But the general point is clear: one must not be meekly charitable against all reason.

(3) If you want to make Matthew coherent, you have to look at Matthew 18:15ff, just referred to, where you have a rite of excommunication. How could such a thing take place if there were no judging of others in the modern sense?

(4) in Matthew 7:3 one simply sees (blepein). In Matthew 7:5 one sees clearly (diablepein). In the latter instance, one sees in order to help. The stare to find fault becomes the genuinely friendly eye of a brother or sister who is a servant. Some commentators fail to discern in Matthew 7:3-5 any instruction concerning fraternal correction. For them, the text prohibits judging altogether. But Matthew shows a special concern elsewhere for the proper procedures for dealing with sin in others; see, once again, Matthew 18 :15-20, a passage which our evangelist thinks consistent with unlimited forgiveness (Matthew 18:23-25). Moreover, Matthew usually uses "brother" to mean Christian brother, so it is natural to see here intraecclesiastical activity.

THE "CULTURE OF DEATH" LIVES

There really is a "culture of death" out there, as John Paul II says and writes. Sometimes it looks like a parade of horrors. While reading through the current issue of The Human Life Review (Winter 2000), this editor ran across several morbid illustrations of today's death culture.

First, in his article "The Party of Death," William Murchison argues that "[t]he present stand [on abortion], in Democratic circles at least, is that no stand [i.e., the pro-choice position] is the right stand. But 'no stand' as to what? A claimed right to take life. This is without precedent. The Democratic Party's agnosticism (however cynical) concerning 'choice' vacates its moral authority on other questions. Saying that any choice is right is the same as saying no choice is wrong. If there are no 'wrong' choices concerning abortion, how can it be said there are 'wrong' choices on guns, on cigarettes, on the environment, on anything?" The same statement could well be offered on The United Methodist Church's qualified pro-choice position on abortion: it undercuts the denomination's moral authority in other areas as well.

Murchison also points to "Democrats and Catholics," an article by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels in Dissent (Fall 1999). Steinfels sadly notes that, because of her political party's position on abortion, she is "coming to think of the Democratic Party not as the party of the people, or the party of the poor and vulnerable, but as the party of death." She goes on to object to the fact that Democrats and liberals are turning to abortion as "the lens through which candidates and issues must be scrutinized." Lately, this was brought home when Vice President Al Gore and Democratic challenger Bill Bradley played a I-am-more-pro-choice-than-thou game. That's a grisly, little, political game.

The next culture-of-death exhibit is from contemporary European history. In March of 1999, you will remember, roughly 800,000 Albanians, fleeing Serb soldiers and NATO bombs, gathered in refugee camps hurriedly organized across Albania. According to Austin Ruse, "[i]n the early days of the emergency, what the refugees desperately needed was food and medicine. However, the United Nations Population Fund's one and only response was to send enough 'reproductive health kits' to last 350,000 people in the field for six months. These packages of contraceptive devices included something called a 'manual vacuum aspirator,' used for performing abortions in the field." Let's get this straight. Hundreds of thousands of"frightened, wounded, hungry refugees [were reaching] out for help." And what did they receive from a UN agency? Hundreds of thousands of portable abortion kits.

And the last item involves the sale of fetal body parts. Writes Hadley Arkes, in "Millennial Blues, Cautious Hopes:" "The story of this novel trade was assembled first by Mark Crutcher in Denton, Texas, and then by the redoubtable Jack and Barbara Wilke at the Life Issues Institute in Cincinnati. The vendors in this trade seem shadowy, and when reporters called to track them down, they disappeared. But the buyers encompass some of the most respectable centers of medical research. And the brochures contain items of this kind:

"...Once the notion takes hold that abortions are thoroughly legitimate, that the unborn child is merely a fetus, with no human standing, then the moral inhibitions melt away—and why be so finicky? Why not sell then a 'product' with some utility, that some people actually want?"

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT

• While addressing the Fifth Commandment, "Honor your father and mother. .." (Exodus 2():12), in his Large Catechism, Martin Luther wrote this: 'Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder [including abortion]? It is because everyone wishes to be his own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he pleases..." Here, here!