Among Reformed people there tends to be a fair bit of distrust about spectacular developments in medicine and biology. There is sufficient reason for this as well. The conviction that people are in charge of their own lives, and of the reality of which they are a part, opens the door in the medical world for euthanasia, and in the world of biology for limitless experimentation with the lives of man and animal.

However, Reformed people also like to make use of new medical possibilities, and it must be recognized that biotechnology can have many positive effects, for example the ability to influence the hereditary properties of organisms. The articles by Molema and Klapwijk, published elsewhere in this special issue, provide convincing examples of both the use, as well as the misuse, of new technical possibilities.

How should we assess these developments? Should we become more consistent in our rejection? Or is our fear actually based on reluctance or hesitation, and should we instead welcome new technologies as cultural achievements? In this article we try to say something about this matter in a general sense.

Adam and Prometheus⤒🔗

As is often the case, the situation here is also too complicated to suffice with a simple "for" or "against." However, I do believe that we should take our starting point from a positive attitude toward science and technology. The cultural task of man includes the investigation of creation, including the research into man himself. Managing the earth also means actively intervening in nature.

Naturally, this intervention is bound by standards. A critical attitude remains necessary, especially in our time. But a general rejection of modern technological developments is not biblical, even if they touch upon areas of life and death.

The human aspiration for power is in itself not sinful, but on the contrary it belongs to the cultural task of man. Enlightening here is a comparison of the history of the fall into sin, as recorded in the Bible, with the ancient Greek myth of Prometheus.

Prometheus had—so it is said—created people by the order of the supreme god Zeus. These people were endowed with many gifts. Yet, something was missing. In fact, their lives did not even differ all that much from the animals.

Prometheus concluded that people mainly lacked access to fire. As long as they had no fire, people would not really rise above the animals. Zeus, however, was certainly not inclined to provide fire to the people. That would make them much too powerful. People would be getting too close to the gods.

When the people were given access to fire through the theft of Prometheus, they had to pay for it. The curse that became part of human existence was intended to teach them to scale down their ambitions.

The people’s power is shown in this myth as competing with the power of the gods. People are overconfident and grab at something that is not for them. The gods consider this action a threat and strike back. This train of thought feeds a fundamental distrust of human technology.

However, the Bible says that things did not go that way. Urged by Satan, man violated God’s test command. This was an act of horrible overconfidence. It appeared tempting to somehow be "like God."

Yet this overconfidence did not have the character of an attempt to expand man’s own power over creation. By eating from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," man did not exceed the boundary of an area in creation where he was not allowed to come. The whole earth is the domain of man. He was also allowed to eat from all the trees in the garden. The "only thing" that was asked of him was to conform to the word of his Creator. That word had to give direction to his life and his work: that this tree was fine, but not that other tree, but not because in the one forbidden tree there would be something inherently special. Its fruit was good to eat.

The decisive question was whether the management of creation by Adam and Eve would remain a service of obedience: that is, how they would exploit the possibilities given by God. Unlike the myth of Prometheus, the Bible does not therefore represent a threat to God’s power by human culture. Human cultural power is not sinful, but the apostate direction in which it is used.

That is why I find it rather confusing to speak of a "counter-creation" that man would be attempting to construct in modern culture. Schuurman does this in his publication Christians in Babel.¹ Man is completely incapable of staging a counter-creation. He can, however, abuse the power of culture, which is a gift from God, in sinful revolt against the Creator. But with this the growth of scientific and technical possibilities itself is not condemned.

The Greek myth tells that Zeus was afraid that people would become too powerful. That is why they had to pay the penalty for the possession of the fire.

Instead, however, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, encourages the cultivation and development of the earth. People are allowed to work the earth as stewards, as managers.

The world is at the disposition of man. This is quite different from what the story of Prometheus suggests.

Instead we are to act as stewards. God’s commandments are the direction indicators for the task of managing it.

Positive and negative evaluation←⤒🔗

An important step towards a positive appreciation in principle came from J.R. Wiskerke.² In line with K. Schilder and H. van Riessen, he places technology within the framework of the cultural task of man. Power, which is one of the central features of technology, should not be judged negatively. Man has been called to have power and dominion.

Fear of thresholds is a bad counselor. Shying away from new developments, such as happened in the past with the steam train, but just as much in our present time with automation, can indicate contempt for God’s order to research technology.

Christians must recognize their responsibility in technology. The redemption in Christ also means that people are set free to take up the task of opening up the world to God’s praise, also through technology.

There are Christians in our time who view the development of technology very differently. A number of examples can be found in a recent issue of the magazine Beweging.³ One of the authors, A. J. van Heusden (deputy director of Youth for Christ), states tellingly that typically there are more believers found among sailors and farmers than among people who are further removed from nature. The suggestion is that technology threatens to remove man from God—as if God is present in nature and is expelled when people intervene in nature.

There is no ground for this romantic train of thought. The earth is the designated work area of man.⁴ Technology has its place in the development of creation, so that man can live in it, even now that the earth is gradually getting more crowded.

In the afore-mentioned edition of Beweging, Dr. F. de Graaff also explains his view on culture. In his view, Western culture has been doomed for a long time. The "god" of the West has died already ages ago. Culture has ended up in nihilistic waters. Not much good can be expected from the technology that this culture produces.

We need to, says De Graaff, keep our distance from the godless culture. That does not mean that we have to isolate ourselves completely. He compares the position of Christians in our time with the position of Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar in Babel. Daniel was not trying to return to Jerusalem. That would have been premature-romantic. But he did know that he was not "at home" in Babylon and he kept his window open toward Jerusalem, the city of God.

Against this line of thought I have this objection: that it leaves  no room for a cultural task of Christians in the world in which we now live. After all, everything is wrong with Western culture. So we cannot do much more than wait until Christ will return. We do not really withdraw from what is happening in the world, but our heart is not involved in the least.

This attitude is, in my opinion, wrong. Christians do need to be involved in culture, with heart and soul where possible, and that includes also technology. No matter how many limitations there may be in our time, the unfolding of what is present as possibilities in God’s creation belongs to the "works of gratitude" that he expects from his children.

Also writing in the same issue of Beweging, Dr. Schuurman, more than the other authors mentioned, has an eye for the enduring cultural work of man. As he did in earlier publications,⁵ he distinguishes between a technology that does make sense from a Christian perspective, and a technological culture that has closed itself off from such a Christian perspective. Schuurman is indeed pessimistic about the possibilities of building a positive culture in the current situation. That is why he repeatedly makes use of the expression "Babel culture" to characterize the world in which we live.

Cultural criticism←⤒🔗

It has been argued above that technology, in principle, deserves a positive approach. But it is now high time to also draw attention to the problems that exist in the field of technology on account of sin.

Human power as such is not wrong, but of course the abuse of it against God’s commandments is problematic. And it must be said that the atmosphere in which the technology is developing in our time, also in the medical and biological fields, is certainly not healthy. The atmosphere of the modern culture is reminiscent of the construction of the tower in Babel (Genesis 11), a tower that was intended to be the symbol not only of the might of people, but also of the victory of self-determination. People did not need God; they could look after themselves. This attitude can also be recognized everywhere in our day and age.

In my view, the characterization "Babel culture" can be used in this sense. However, I consider the reference to the exile of Israel in Babylon less fortunate, as can be found with De Graaff, but also with Schuurman.⁶ In certain respects the position of the exiles in Babylon is comparable to that of Christians in an unchristian world. Yet when assessing, for example, technological developments, the comparison is flawed at a decisive point, because Christians have a cultural task on an earth which, despite everything, is their rightful place to live and work! The Jewish exiles, on the other hand, had to understand their situation as a punishment, which—when God would be merciful—was still an intermezzo. It was their task to also be at work in Babel, but their heart was not completely involved in it.

The reference to the Babylon of the exile needs to be corrected by acknowledging that the earth and everything in it is the property of the LORD,⁷ and that his children have their place on that earth.

This also applies to the time after the first coming of Christ, now that God has arranged that until the second coming "wheat and weeds" will grow up together, and that the sun will continue to rise over the good and the evil.

Two problems←⤒🔗

Of course a critical attitude remains necessary. There are major problems in Western culture, which are also present in the field of technology. I will briefly refer to two of them.

In the first place, it should be noted that under the influence of secularization, the perspective of many people has narrowed considerably. They do not look beyond their own earthly life. And this narrowing perspective leads to a morality that can be called hedonistic, that is, a morality that assumes that life is only meaningful when it can be enjoyed.

Such an attitude can be explained. When people are convinced that life ends at death, then the urge becomes disproportionately large to make something satisfactory out of that life.

Many people therefore have a hard time accepting that there are less enjoyable things in their lives. It is impossible for them to realize that suffering and death can have meaning in some way or another.

Life takes on a consumer mentality. A car that always shows defects or threatens to give up any day has little or no value. A life accompanied with suffering or one that appears to end soon is also difficult to experience as meaningful. And why then should we accept this when there seem to be alternatives available?

When the birth of a disabled child can be prevented by an abortion, would that not be the way to go? And when my life no longer makes sense to me, it must be possible to put an end to it, right?

The hedonistic attitude as outlined here leads to science and technology being separated from God’s commandments. The right to an enjoyable life becomes the absolute criterion.

To prevent any misunderstanding: of course, it is wonderful when science and technology can contribute to the alleviation of suffering. The objection focuses on the atmosphere of there being no longer any norms, a situation to which many are aspiring.

Principled resistance is required here. Life is not the property of people. God creates life and he guides it. Its meaning is therefore not dependent on its perfection, or on the ability to enjoy it undisturbed.

In the life of someone who knows of God’s fatherly care for his children, suffering is not without significance. In addition, a believer looks beyond life on this earth.

People are never entitled to a consumer status in their lives. Life is a gift from God and with this comes also an assignment.

In the second place, it must be noted that it has become very common in our culture to treat the created reality without any respect. This can be seen in many areas, especially in medical science and in biology. Who still cares about the fact that we are to acknowledge that we live and work in God’s creation, that we are dealing with a creature "made in God’s image"?

This tendency is as strong as it is also because by their nature, science and technology are already inclined to approach reality as much as possible independently of "values" and "feelings." The study of the composition of the human body could only take flight after the notion had been overcome that you cannot actually cut into a human body, even when the person has died. Such a hesitation, which may testify to respect for man and for his Creator, has nevertheless been breached by scientists.

This seems justified. Creation has been entrusted to be managed by people. As long as people observe God’s commandments and, for example, do not assume that they may freely dispose of a human being’s life (“you shall not kill”), there are no prohibited areas in creation.

As long as God’s commandments are observed... But this is the critical point. The audacity of researchers very often turns into self-delusion. They forget that they are working in God’s creation and are thus accountable to him.

Resistance needs to be offered against this. There are boundaries! These are not determined by fear or by a romantic reverence for nature, but by the knowledge that God sets standards.

In dealing with patients in medical care, this implies, for example, that such persons are always regarded as people and not as dressed-up technological challenges.

In hereditary research, the conclusion must be that in experiments human embryos cannot be sacrificed.

Responsible cultural labour←⤒🔗

Cultural labour is not always easy, and certainly not for Christians who often notice that in their work their colleagues do not want to listen to God and his commandments.

It is possible that the cooperation breaks down on that point. Science and technology can be controlled by unacceptable objectives (for example, the development of abortion techniques) to such an extent that a Christian does have to say “No.” We can also imagine a situation in which research methods are applied that are ethically unacceptable (for example, experiments at the expense of human embryos). In such cases Christians may not cooperate.

But even if the situation is different, when research and technology can be seen in the context of the cultural task of man, a critical attitude remains in place. Concretely, that could mean the following.

First of all, Christians need to continue their efforts to make the moral and philosophical problems associated with science and technology visible—and to keep these in the forefront. This will mean that often they will have to go against the current. A "no nonsense" atmosphere in a laboratory can make it difficult to create a climate in which ethical consideration is made possible.

Next, Christians themselves need to be clear in their cultural criticism. This applies to all Christians and therefore also to the physician or biologist among them. As said before, this criticism of culture does not mean that science and technology as such become suspect, but it does imply that protest is voiced against the spirit that often dominates this sector of modern cultural life. Against the tendency to build a "tower of Babel," prophetic opposition must be voiced—not because towers should not be allowed, but because this construction is undertaken to the glory of people and not the glory of God.

In the third place, it is important to plead for the greatest possible openness, from a professional perspective but also, for example, in politics. Judging between what is and what is not ethically justified is not a privilege of experts within the confines of their treatment room or their laboratory. Good regulation is a task for governments and people’s representatives need to be able to address the issues.

With a growth of human capabilities, ethical issues come into focus. Note well, that they are not new each time, but they are intensified. People who are capable of more can also do more things wrong.

The fundamental question as to who controls the life of man has been constantly discussed in the history of Western culture. What is new is that this time-honoured question is becoming more urgent in unexpected areas. Organ transplants are now possible, as well as research into abnormalities of unborn children and even influencing hereditary characteristics of living beings. All of these new possibilities provide new variants of ancient questions of life. It is not surprising that many speak of a crisis of our culture.

Indeed, the issues loom large. In spite of this, we should not talk ourselves into a panic. We have our place and task in the world as God’s children at all times. For how much longer? Only God knows.

Until then, we remain active, and we certainly do not give up in despair and sighing. We can be enthusiastic about the opportunities that God gives to people.

Christians are at work on this earth as subjects of the kingdom of heaven; their work, including their cultural labour, is not in vain in the Lord Christ.