The Christian idea of a ‘soul’ is itself an example of an ‘evolving doctrine’. In the Old Testament there is a concept of a ‘shade’ dwelling in ‘sheol’ (often translated as ‘the grave’), hinting at some undefined continuance of human life. In the New Testament, life after death is described predominantly in terms of bodily resurrection, with virtually no sense of a ‘soul’ existing apart from a physical body.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, a belief in souls as a part of a human being, distinguishable from the body, was soon assimilated into Christian thought. Souls, in pre-Christian philosophy were regarded as immortal, and some Christians have taken a view that when a person dies their soul continues to exist, in a diminished capacity, until it is reunited with its body at the resurrection.

Technically, whether the soul is accepted as immortal or not, the Christian view of humanity is holistic. To put it another way, a person’s soul or spirit is only definitely known to exist ‘embodied’ in a physical body, hence the New Testament emphasis on physical resurrection in ‘perfect bodies’.

Another area for confusion is between the soul and the mental, thought processes, which could be described as consciousness, and are often described as ‘mind’. A ‘soul’ is often grouped with mind and body to describe a human bieng in three parts – for example, body, mind and spirit. A soul cannot be detected by any empirical tests, unlike the physical body and consciousness/intelligence (usually described as ‘spirit’ or ‘mind’), so the belief in human souls is a matter of faith.

However, for those who do believe in souls, and most Christians do, there are two issues relating to the current debate on cloning with regard to souls. The first is whether a cloned embryo would have a soul. The second relates to the link between souls and genetic identity; or to put it another way: would a clone have a cloned soul?

Artificial embryos: artificial souls?
Some Christians, including the Roman Catholic church, would argue that life begins at the very moment of conception, so as soon as sperm and egg fuse together to create a new genetic identity, the ensuing embryo has a soul. For example, British pressure group Care state: “CARE believes, as do many others, that human life begins at conception. … We do not see any moral distinction between an embryo, a postnatal baby and an adult.” [Human Cloning - Your Questions Answered, CARE, 2000]

This belief that an embryo has a soul, is why anti-abortion campaigners oppose ‘early abortion’ methods such as the morning-after pill, which prevents an embryo implanting in the uterus, effectively killing it. Some also oppose infertility treatment, because it often creates a number of surplus embryos which are not implanted and are subsequently destroyed. [See for example: Cherishing Life (teaching document from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales on life issues), published in 2004]

Other Christians regard an embryo as only a ‘potential human’, rather than a full human, but then it is debatable when ‘ensoulment’ occurs, and what causes it. The Catholic position, echoed by many anti-abortion campaigners is a catch-all. By insisting that life begins at conception, when God gives an embryo a soul, the awkward question ‘When does a foetus gain a soul?’ is avoided.

If the soul does come into existence at the moment of conception, that means if an artificially created embryo survives and develops into a human being, such a position would have to regard the clone as having a soul.

A cloned embryo would be developed in a very similar way to an embryo created through standard infertility treatment, which would be regarded as having a soul. The only difference is in the source of the genetic material. There is still a ‘moment of conception’, regardless of the origin of the genetic material.

Genetic identity and cloned souls
Except, as in most medical ethical issues, it is not as simple as that. A clone would, of course, share the exact same genetic identity as another human being. This already happens in the case of identical twins, but as ethicists frequently point out, identical twins are usually very similar in age, and are also formed naturally. A clone would be younger than it’s genetic twin and “would be denied the right to genetic diversity and the unique identity and individuality that natural procreation provides.” [- Philippa Taylor, Cloning: Issues and Implications, The Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, Summer 2003]

If the Christian holistic view of humanity is to be believed, a human’s soul is inextricably bound up in their genetic identity, even more so if human embryos have souls from the moment of conception, as in the views outlined above. If a human clone was regarded as having a soul, then would that soul be an exact replica of its genetic twin? Would the cloner effectively be cloning a soul too?

On a facetious level, if God ‘gives out’ souls when an embryo is created, then this issue is irrelevant. A new embryo would have a new soul. If, however, souls are produced along with new genetic material – and are inextricably linked to it – then re-creating that genetic material may create an additional soul too.

Creating clones
As a final point in this whole discussion it is probably worth pointing out that a clone, in this context, is likely to be the victim of circumstances. While there is no evidence that a successful human cloning has taken place, and some debate over whether the procedure could even produce a viable human being, there is a deeper ethical issue of why a person would want to produce a clone.

If clones were produced to harvest body parts, as in science fiction film The Island, then the clone would be a victim. The Christian, Biblical depiction of God is of a deity who takes the side of the oppressed – in this case the clones. Certainly, in order to deny the human rights of a clone, it would be easy to imagine people claiming they were without souls and less than human.

But it would be hard to square the Biblical injunctions to protect the weak and the powerless (the ‘voiceless’) with aggressively cloning humans and using the clones as ‘spare parts’. However, whether it would be acceptable to use cloned embryos to create ‘stem cells’ or other medical treatments, will depend on whether a human embryo is considered to have a soul or not.

This answer is sponsored by Adam Harbinson, author of Savage Shepherds

Tony Blair and George W. Bush wear their Christian faith very much on their sleeve and are not averse to playing it up in front of the right audience but being very vague about it before another. Their job is very demanding, carrying an enormous amount of responsibility with the scope to make mistakes on a similar scale if they are not careful. There is a question that is often asked regarding whether their faith is genuine. But if they don’t have the time in their busy schedules to do any Bible study, what advice and examples does the Bible offer regarding those with such responsibility in how they should practice their faith and how it should influence their decision-making? What are the top five scriptures they could meditate upon during their brief downtimes?

This is a fairly interesting current affairs topic at the moment, with George Bush allegedly saying that God told him to start the war in Iraq, and Tony Blair revealing on a UK chat show that he God would be his judge over his support of President Bush’s war plans. However, there is a great amount of debate over the genuineness of either politician’s faith. Bush obviously has his supporters among the right-wing Christians in the USA, but some critics have singled out his disregard for the environment and for the American poor as evidence of defective theology. Similarly Blair’s faith occasionally comes under scrutiny, but is more often disregarded or mocked, notably in the magazine Private Eye which includes a regular column reporting the ‘Albion Parish News’ as if the Prime Minister were an ineffectual Anglican vicar.

However, this is a serious enough question and one, which needs an answer. Is it at all possible for a Christian to exert governmental power and make decisions from an entirely Christian basis? One of the major criticisms of recent politics is that pragmatism often wins out over principles. Any Christian in a position of power may feel that they have to make decisions that go against their personal moral stance in order to achieve a ‘greater good’.

There are, of course, several parts of the Bible that relate to how leaders should conduct themselves. In the Old Testament era, when Israel was a theocratic monarchy, the rulers of Israel were expected to adhere to certain standards, although in practice, there was little to differentiate them morally from surrounding nations. Even notable rulers like David and Solomon engaged in certain dubious activities, which despite subsequent attempts to eulogise them, remain central to their stories. The Old Testament, with its many God-sanctioned wars, has proved to be a source of inspiration for many ‘Christian’ leaders through the centuries, who naturally assume that they are fighting God’s battles here on earth.

In some senses, this question does contain a potential area for confusion. Put simply, while on a greater scale, the actions of presidents and prime ministers are no different to the actions of any other human beings. The consequences may be larger, and more public, but the responsibilities for those actions remain the same before God. Christian theology teaches that every human being will be held to account for what they have done (or haven’t as the case may be).

In the case of President Bush and prime Minister Blair, one passage of Scripture that does come to mind, given the events in Iraq, is Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew chapters 5 and 6. This speech which in Matthew’s gospel kicks off Jesus’ teaching ministry, is often regarded as Christianity distilled into a few short phrases. One that stands out is Matthew chapter 5, verse 9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Whether peace can be forcibly created is another debate. Calling Bush and Blair ‘sons of God’ is left to the discretion of individuals.

Thanks for your question, CM. This marks the 100th answer to questions sent in from all around the world, since freelance theology began. Thank you to everyone who has sent in a question.

This answer is sponsored by Adam Harbinson, author of Savage Shepherds and the forthcoming book, The Jesus I Know, which includes a contribution from Jon the freelance theologian. Discover more about Adam on his personal website. Adam attends May Street Church

To find out how you can support freelance theology by sponsoring an answer, please write by using the ‘ask your question’ button.

Could you give me an input of your views on the theological implications of the recent marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla since the Church of England endorsed it?

The theological implications of the latest British royal wedding relate mainly to Anglicans and the marriage causes difficulties for two reasons. Firstly, Prince Charles is the next in line to ascend the British throne and thus become the nominal head of the Anglican Church. Secondly, it has always been the position of the Anglican Church that divorced persons could not remarry in an Anglican church. Prince Charles and Camilla were both divorced and had admitted to being in an adulterous relationship.

In many ways Prince Charles’ personal life remains his personal life, but questions have been asked about his suitability to lead the Anglican Church given his behaviour. In the blessing ceremony, both Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles participated in the traditional prayer of penitence from the Book of Common Prayer, which enjoins people to seek God’s forgiveness and renewal in the face of ‘manifold sins and wickedness’.

The impact of the blessing will no doubt be felt through increased demands on Anglican leaders to soften the rules on divorce and remarriage. Theologically, divorce will probably always be a thorny subject. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus explicitly stated that a man who married a divorced woman committed adultery with her (see Matthew chapter 5, verse 32 and chapter 19, verses 3-9, Mark chapter 10, verses 11-12 and Luke chapter 16, verse 18). The issue for a Christian wanting to proclaim Biblical teaching is how to mesh those statements with 21st century situations. The problem with divorce, as with many such highly personal subjects, is that life never seems to be clear-cut. Theological debates have to be conducted in a sensitive way, because people affected by divorce can have old wounds reopened by ‘objective’ discussions.

Another impact of Prince Charles’ wedding will be the renewed vigour found among those who want to see the Church of England disestablished and no longer looking towards the British monarch as the head of the Anglican Church. In 2003 Against Establishment, a self-declared ‘Anglican polemic’ by Theo Hobson, predicted that if Prince Charles got married it would create a “constitutional conundrum” [Against Establishment, Darton, Longman and Todd, p.38]. Hobson is highly critical of the established church for failing to declare Prince Charles ineligible as head of the Church; failing to take a moral stance as it did in the cases of Edward VIII in 1936 and Princess Margaret in 1955. “This speaks volumes about the loss of the Church’s cultural authority… Now the assumption was that the Church would have to adapt itself to the lively love-life of royalty. Which it has duly done: its position on remarriage has conveniently softened over the last few years.” [op. cit. pp38-9]

The disestablishment movement will no doubt gather apace given the reaction of many evangelicals to recent events. While divorce will stay on the debating agenda, the fact that the Church had to, in a sense, go against its own principles to accommodate the man who will one day head it has raised alarm bells. Prince Charles has also famously said that he wants to be ‘a defender of faith’, rather than ‘the defender of the faith’. It might seem a small exercise in verbal pedantry, but actually it has huge theological implications. If Prince Charles really means that he regards Anglicanism, and therefore Christianity, as just one faith option amongst many, then a large proportion of the Anglican Church would disagree with him. The ‘evangelical wing’ of Anglicanism represents the growing local congregations within the Church of England and evangelicalism is often characterised by an emphasis on the exclusive nature of Christianity. Personal morals aside, any theological tinkering by the ‘head of the Church’ will undoubtedly cause dissent.

The challenge towards removing the British monarch as head of the Anglican Church may already be brewing. Interestingly, one of the people who lodged an objection against the wedding was Anglican priest Fr Paul Williamson from Feltham. He has since claimed that the Queen has broken her Coronation oath to uphold the doctrine of the Church of England by consenting to the wedding of two divorcees outside the Church.

At this moment there is no way of knowing what the end result of the royal wedding will be. Any changes in the Anglican Church’s attitude to divorce will take many years to come into effect. The issue of disestablishment may be resolved sooner, even if that means it has to be formally rejected as a way forward by the General Synod.

Thanks for your question, CM – it’s always good to have current affairs under theological scrutiny.