The Works of God

In “Arguing about Genetics and Disability,” Tom Shakespear asserts he is showing two sides of an argument, and that his own views are a “composite of both characters’ positions.”  He is either deceiving himself, or trying to deceive us, because there is no real argument presented. 

His dialogue, which appears in the book Theology, Disability and the New Genetics, makes the classic academic move to appear objective.  He is writing a dialogue between two ‘sides’ of an argument, and ends his introduction this way:

The author’s own views are a composite of both characters’ positions. (p. 67)

My antenna immediately go up on statements like that.  I worked on a college campus for nine years and learned that many faculty with the highest credentials live with fear of looking foolish before their colleagues.  Thus, some will argue over the smallest matter of definition or school of thought, becoming very skilled at cleverness and subtlety, and will never fully reveal what they believe about something.

So, what am I to believe about this ‘composite’ of two positions?  It appears he is either deceiving us, or himself.

Self-deception appears to be the main problem, particularly if he believes he is being objective in creating an argument.  His dialogue quickly shows us where he stands on a core moral issue that is central to the ‘argument.’ However, both of his characters agree on that moral issue.  Agreement means there is no substantive argument actually taking place.

And if he knows what he is doing, that his dialogue really is just a nuanced conversation in support of a controversial (and I would add, horrendous) moral positioning and not an argument at all, than his above statement about a ‘composite’ is dishonest.

I am not arguing that he can’t create his dialogue between two different sides of an argument.  Using such literary devices serves a useful purpose and can be very helpful.  I have also been watching different authors engage each other, such as Pastor John’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright.  Pastor John clearly disagrees with N.T. Wright, but attempts to present Bishop Wright’s arguments fairly.  Some have argued he didn’t understand Wright completely – but at least we know what he believes and why he has engaged Bishop Wright.  I would suggest that this type of engagement is a much higher statement of respect for Bishop Wright than trying to play both sides to appear smart.

This notion – of living in nuance and subtlety, being able to illuminate on a subject without revealing where one stands, playing on the edges of two sides of an argument – is a powerful incentive to place intellectual engagement above righteousness and what God has to say about a subject.  And it leads to sin.

After all, we are not called to be clever, but to place our trust in Jesus and be called by the world as foolish.

And when the subject is as serious as abortion and pre-natal screening, which is the point of Shakespear’s dialogue, disabled babies are placed in the cross-hairs for termination, no matter how much one side argues against pre-natal screening.  It is, after all, just another morally acceptable choice; the two sides have already agreed on that.

Please, don’t play games like this.  That choice is not morally acceptable. Reveal what you believe, no matter the cost, especially when real babies are being aborted because of disability.  The arguments should be just as stark and clear and final as the termination of a pregnancy.