Saviour Sibling?

A bill regarding the use of human embryos is currently passing through parliament at the moment, and, naturally, causing a huge amount of debate. One piece on the BBC caught my ear the other morning - a Bishop was asked what he thought about the creation of so-called 'saviour siblings': human beings created for the sole purpose of saving another. And I thought, this is going to be interesting, how is a Christian going to respond to that?

He didn't go there of course, but it remains a difficult area of theology: is Jesus just a 'saviour sibling'?

Technorati: Embryo | Saviour Sibling

Comments

[Benjamin Sternke]

Interesting thought. Reminds me of Dallas Willard talking about some as "Vampire Christians" - only interested in Jesus for his blood.

But I think a few things make Jesus different than just a "savior sibling." If he was, we wouldn't need all the rubbish in the gospels about his life and ministry. Who cares, right? Why doesn't he just get on with the dying part?

Plus there's the resurrection and ascension: the permanence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus wasn't just a sacrificial lamb who "fell on the gears" to save humanity. He's also the living human being who's in charge of the universe right now.

[Jonathan]

Benjamin says:
"But I think a few things make Jesus different than just a "savior sibling." If he was, we wouldn't need all the rubbish in the gospels about his life and ministry. Who cares, right? Why doesn't he just get on with the dying part?"

It seems to me that plenty of Christians have precisely that attitude, as do most formulations of an evangelical statement of faith!

[Kester]

I think you're right Jonathan - and I think this is where we've got way away from a rich and mysterious view of the trinity, and into something much more consumerist. We don't participate in Christ in the communion anymore, we consume him: get our piece of saviour sibling DNA to boost our immunity against sin, the world and the devil. And I think this is shot through with problems.