EDUCACIÓN Y FORMACIÓN

Introduction

Various forms of Christian faith and practice are found around the world in many different cultures. The term Christian means many different things according to its context—the basic system of belief, the practice of a particu- lar local or national church, or the general culture, which may also be called “Christian’ ” if Christianity is the major religion, although the churches may consider this latter a poor representation of their faith.

Within their core beliefs, Christian churches display an immense vari- ety of cultural expression. This in turn leads to many different views and practices about food and about its genetic modifi cation. A single defi nitive Christian account of GM food shared by the diverse billions of Christians of the world would be impossible. As a scientist and Protestant theologian working for a Presbyterian church in a rich industrialized country, my con- text for framing the issues differs greatly, say, from a Catholic subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa.

With these important caveats, this chapter considers fi rst how food relates to Christian belief and practice. The issue of the acceptability of GM food is then explored in relation to various aspects of our faith and from differing viewpoints, illustrated by examples and from the two focus groups conducted with Mennonite Christians and Seventh-day Adventists in Van- couver in 2005. The level of refl ection varies greatly. Some European Protes- tant churches were proactive in investigating GM crops and animals already in the mid-1990s. The German Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (EKD),1

the Dutch Multidisciplinary Centre for Church and Society (MCKS)2 _and

the Church of Scotland’s Society, Religion, and Technology Project3 _also

explored the theological, ethical, and societal issues ahead of the public debate. In Canadian churches, there has been considerable recent study.4

Generally, however, churches have been slow to take up the issue, responding reactively to a debate happening external to them. With some notable exceptions, such as the Catholic theologian and former botanist Celia Deane-Drummond,5 _{the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have given}

markedly less attention to GM food than, say, to human genetics issues. There has been no formal declaration from the pope on GM food as such. While the Orthodox tradition has considered ecology at many levels,6 _there

have been few statements on GM food.7

Attitudes among Christians toward GM food vary widely from enthu- siasm to outright opposition but often lie somewhere in between. Informa- tion about genetic modifi cation of food comes to most believers mediated through the fi lters of secular media, government, the public relations mate- rial of the bioindustry and NGOs, local hearsay, and so on. Much depends on how one fi rst heard about GM, and who presented the issues and with what bias. In countries where the debate is politicized and polarized into campaign claims and counterclaims, getting to the truth presents a serious problem for many Christians. They wish for trustworthy sources of informa- tion to weigh up the issues for themselves. Where churches have established a presence in local and national debates over GM food, they have often found themselves playing the role of honest broker in a debate where trust is in short supply.

Food in the Christian Tradition

Christianity does not have specifi c food requirements as basic tenets of the faith. This is because of the central Christian belief that salvation is a gift by the grace of God, which no amount of human effort, moral living, or religious practices can achieve. In Jesus Christ, God has come in person, living a perfect life, dying for all human sins of past and future, and rising from the dead to reconcile humanity to God. Through Christ, the believer enjoys a relationship with God and seeks to live a life consistent with God’s ways, as revealed in the Bible and the Christian traditions handed down by the church. Because God has come to us, no further sacrifi ces are necessary.

The New Testament writings declare explicitly that there are no pro- hibitions on any type of food. Christ fulfi lled all the dietary and ritual requirements specifi ed in the parts of the Hebrew scriptures that Christians call the “Old Testament.” Jesus taught that what defi les us is not any food

that we eat but the sin already in our hearts, and in the gospel concludes, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:14–23). Paul argues that food does not bring us near to God (1 Corinthians 8:8) and that “[t]he kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).

Excess of food and drink are inconsistent with holy living. Christians are to be fi lled with the Spirit of God instead of being out of control in drunkenness or addiction. Some Christians choose to be vegetarians, out of concerns about animal welfare and environmental resources or believ- ing that God’s original intention for humans was to eat plants (Genesis 1 and 9), eating animals being a later concession. A few groups within the broad umbrella of Christianity advocate the adoption of some Old Tes- tament dietary stipulations as God’s best plan for humans. For example, Seventh-day Adventists are forbidden from eating pork and certain other meats and fi sh and dairy products, but such requirements are unusual and are not accepted by the majority of church traditions.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions practice fasting at certain times, when only food taken from the earth is eaten, not meat. Fasting is an aid to spiritual awareness, to help focus away from daily affairs and habits, but is not done to escape from the body or from desires or appetite as such. The bodily incar- nation and resurrection of Jesus Christ fundamentally emphasize the value God puts on human physicality. As an Orthodox scholar expresses it, “[b]y recovering a proper attitude to our bodies . . . we also recover a right attitude to the creation as a whole. We are helped to value each thing for its self—not just for the way in which it serves our own ends. Fasting, so far from being world-denying, is in reality intensely world-affi rming. . . . It is God’s world, a world full of beauty and wonder, marked everywhere with the signature of the Creator, and this we can discover through a true observance of fasting.”8

Sharing a meal is important in Christian family life and in informal Christian fellowship and teaching. In the Mennonite focus group, this was expressed as follows: “We use food to show love. . . . Just as Jesus used the very simple act of eating with people to express love and compassion, I think, we use food to express a lot of things that we maybe don’t always have the words for.” Jesus’ example of eating with outcasts is signifi cant for many Christian groups as a call to show hospitality to outsiders. Several members of the Mennonite group stressed the creativity of food that is handed down in recipes, rather than ready made food. One said, “I use the term slow food. . . . It’s the preparation of the food. . . . Food is more than just utilitarian—it’s a spiritual undertaking of preparing food and eating. Grow- ing up in my Mennonite Christian tradition, you couldn’t eat food without praying. . . . You sit down as a family unit to eat. You don’t eat and grab. It’s a time to come together and focus and to offer thanks for that gift.”

Finally, food is used representatively in the central ritual common to Christians everywhere, known as the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist, or the Mass. A mouthful of bread and wine is consumed in a service of worship that focuses on two symbolic acts that Christ performed in the course of the last meal with his disciples before his crucifi xion. The broken bread represents his body, broken on the cross for humanity, and the shared cup of wine represents his blood, shed to forgive the sins of the world, the sign of a new covenant between God and humankind. The signifi cance is not the food itself but its symbolic use as a representation, reenactment, or memorial of the death of Jesus Christ, as an act that unites all believers and as a foretaste of the eternal banquet that is a metaphor of heaven. In many traditions, much indeed is made of the fact that the bread and wine are ordinary fruits of God’s creation, adapted by human skill and offered back to God as tokens.

Genetically Modifi ed Food as an Intrinsic Issue

General

The fi rst question to be asked in relation to genetically modifi ed food is whether it is intrinsically right or wrong to create crops or animals with genes from other species with which they could not normally breed. Many churches that have examined GM food in depth could not fi nd a substantial theological case to say it is intrinsically wrong, although some groups have advanced arguments that would prohibit it absolutely or conditionally. More often concerns and objections raised by the Christian faith are about the consequences of modifi cation or to its social context, in relation to impor- tant theological principles.

Biblical Data

Christians look to the Bible for foundational principles and particular commands. Not surprisingly, few texts relate directly to what we now call “crop” or “animal genetics.” Selective breeding is practiced by Jacob, from whom the breed of Jacob sheep gets its name (Genesis 30). Members of the Seventh-day Adventist focus group observed that since God created the different creatures “after their kinds” (Genesis 1), we should not move genes to unrelated species. The Engineering Genesis study,9 _{however, was}

inconclusive as to whether the Hebrew distinctions of “kinds” necessarily equates with current biological notions of species or whether such distinc- tions were meant to prohibit admixtures. The important case of Solomon

riding King David’s mule as a sign of his succession to the kingship over God’s people (1 Kings 1:32–35) suggests that the mixing of kinds is not absolutely proscribed.

Two passages contain ordinances that prohibit mismating cattle, sow- ing two kinds of seed in a fi eld, or making a garment out of two kinds of material (Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9–11). These are not normally seen as a biblical sanction that the genetic modifi cation of crops or animals is proscribed by God. As observed above, practical stipulations about food and agriculture in this section of the Hebrew scriptures are not binding to Christians. They would not form the basis of a major doctrine unless comparable texts elsewhere indicate an important moral principle behind the specifi c command. Thus the precept “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4) correlates with wider biblical principles that legitimate uses of animals for food or economic gain must be moderated by care for their welfare.

It is hard to see here what would be the principle in verses about mixed sowing, which seem to have no parallels and no clear context to inter- pret them. A study by the UK Evangelical Alliance10 _{commented that “the}

prohibitions have a primarily cultural referent. Their purpose is principally to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness vis à vis the rest of the nations. It does not exclude the possibility that these laws also refl ect the need to preserve natural distinctions; merely that this motivation is not explicit within the text. . . . We have thus found little substantial biblical evidence with which to support an intrinsic objection to genetic engineering as such.”

GM Seen as a Reasonable Human Intervention in Creation

This leads us to consider genetic modifi cation in the light of broad theologi- cal principles. The fi rst of these relates to how far God’s creation is open for humans to modify and in what ways. Historically, Christian thinking has generally seen intervention in the natural world as ordained by God in the creation ordinances that grant humans dominion over all the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26–28). This has been variously interpreted at different times and contexts—overcoming the threats presented to vulnerable humanity by the natural world, recovering the order of creation lost in human rebellion against God, or harnessing the forces of nature to human ends.11

The latter has been much debated in recent decades in the recovery of a theology of creation that reasserts the importance of our obligations to God in caring for creation. This is implicit throughout scripture but was largely neglected under the infl uence of secular ideas of human mastery over nature as though we owned it, accountable to no one.12 _{The creation}

is God’s and only given in trust to humans. We are accountable to God for our use of it. Dominion is limited by God’s laws, which require humans to restrain their activity out of respect for the rest of creation, love for our neighbor, and care for the disadvantaged. In the recovery of elements from Celtic traditions, creation is once again seen as a consummate work of art that points to God and is to be treasured with wonder as much as it is a tool to be used.13

How then is GM food to be viewed in the light of the human rela- tionship to creation? A European church study acknowledges that part of the expression of God’s image in humanity lies in humans’ ability to shape creation to meet our needs for food and sustenance.14 _{There seem no a priori}

grounds why GM should be selected for special objection, when compared with the myriad ways in which humans intervene in creation.

Since antiquity humans have cultivated crops, domesticated wild ani- mals, and bred food animals and plants to their own ends. Today’s cereals and cattle are very different indeed from their original wild forms. Humans have delved into the interstices of the matter of creation. In chemistry we have violently changed the chemical structure of rocks and other natural materials such as minerals to create new compounds and alloys, such as the bronze of Solomon’s temple or titanium for hip replacements. In physics we have manipulated the fundamental forces of creation, for instance to chan- nel electrons to generate electricity. We have invented means of propulsion, energy, calculation, communication, and vaccination that have changed our world in ways unimaginable to our ancient forebears. While the manner and extent of such interventions may raise concerns, Christians today do not normally argue that the interventions themselves are wrong before God.

When so many other fundamental changes to matter are regarded as commonplace, it would then seem arbitrary and indeed illogical to declare that molecular genetic intervention in crops and plants is intrinsically wrong. If God has given humans the skill to do so, and no clear biblical prohibition has been ordained, it is argued that we ought not to reject the basic idea of altering food crops and animals by moving a few genes across species.

Creation can also be seen as fi lled with possibilities, which human beings are to develop, fashioning into new forms the potential of what God fi rst created. Creation is not a static entity. God did not call humans primari- ly to be rangers of a nature conservation reserve. Science and technology are proper human activities within this God-given mandate to make advances in the human condition. In Engineering Genesis the authors observed, “In as much as it may preserve crops from pests or drought, help prevent famine, and provide humans with healing therapies for disorders and disease, the genetic modifi cation of non-human life could therefore be said to be an

intrinsically appropriate use of science and technology for the preservation of human life from the threats which the natural world frequently presents to it. . . . Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself is hereby expressed in helping and enriching the life of others.”15 _{But it also acknowledged the}

considerable proviso, as we shall see, that in the pursuit of technology we do not become proud of our own wisdom or fail to practice due foresight, justice, and proper respect for creation.

GM Seen as an Improper Human Intervention in Creation

Some Christians do, however, make inherent objections against GM food. The primary concern is that humans are in some sense “playing God” in wrongly changing what God has created. While playing God is not a strict theological concept, it expresses a perception of usurping the creative preroga- tive of God by doing something that belongs to God alone, taking on a role that is not ours to have. It implies that humans are presumptuous or foolish to think they can improve on the wisdom by which God has created all living things and the interlinked ways they grow and fl ourish.16 _{For example, one}

member of the Adventist focus group said, “God created this world. He cre- ated the food that is safe and good. Who are we as human beings to try and play God and create new things that we don’t know anything about really?” Much was made in this group of the importance of what is seen as “natural.” This was expressed as doing “something that could not happen in nature,” like mixing plant with animal or hybridizing plants to make crosses that only humans could bring about. For some members of the Mennonite focus group, transspecies genetic modifi cation “raised the red fl ags” as a human interven- tion that did things that could never occur in a natural system.

The use of naturalness in any absolute sense is notoriously problematic in ethics, as the Engineering Genesis study discussed.17 _{What is considered}

natural is highly relative to time, location, belief, aesthetics, and culture. Arguments from nature are seen as theologically ambiguous. The popular assumption that nature knows best is viewed with caution, as a notion derived more from questionable naturalistic or pantheistic assumptions about nature than Christian theology.18 _{We live in a morally fallen context; what}

we call “nature” or perceive today as natural is not necessarily a good guide to what God intended. Playing God can also have positive connotations.19

Humans were ordained by God to rule on God’s behalf over creation. In this capacity we have made innumerable far-reaching changes to God’s creation, which would not have happened naturally. Thus it is not suffi cient to assert that GM is self-evidently unnatural and other interventions are not, without further elucidation of what is meant.

What Is GM Changing?

Behind the belief that in some sense genetic modifi cation violates God’s cre-