Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 44, No.

1, Spring 2005 (Ó 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10943-004-1141-x

Bioethics and Christian

Theology
VERY REVEREND MAKARIOS GRINIEZAKIS
and DEACON NATHANAEL SYMEONIDES
ABSTRACT: The authors of this essay suggest that the field of bioethics and Christian theology
have a great deal to offer to each other. The authors first argue that representatives from both
fields must first make sure that they fully and correctly represent their respective position. In
other words, scientists, ethicists, and theologians alike must make sure that they present their
fields and not use their knowledge merely for personal gain at the stake of misguiding people.
Once this is established, the authors then proceed to show the intimate relationship between
Christianity and medicine that has existed throughout the ages. It is a call for a continuation of
such a relationship that the authors suggest between bioethics and theology. Through an inte-
gration of bioethics and Christian theology, both scientists/physicians and theologians are able to
gain greater insight into the human person—a focus in both fields.

While it is readily understood that bioethics is a primary concern to medical

doctors, biologists, philosophers, and lawyers, it must also be made clear that
of no less importance is the role of theologians in the consideration of topics
arising within this discipline. The former saying, ‘‘silete thelogy in numere
alieno,’’1 which means, ‘‘Theologians keep silence on matters that belong to
others,’’ is no longer applicable. On the contrary, the word of the theologian

Fr. Makarios Griniezakis was born in Heraklion of Crete, Greece. He was tonsured a monk and
ordained to the deaconate on October 18, 1993 at the Monastery of St. George Epanosifis. In 1996,
he was ordained to the priesthood. He began his theological studies at the Ecclesial High School of
Rhizarios of Athens and at Anotera Ecclesial School of Athens. Fr. Makarios has received his
Master of Divinity from Athens University School of Theology, and then furthered his studies in
medicine at the Medical School of the University of Crete. In 1999, Fr. Makarios furthered his
studies in the United States where he earned a Master of Sacred Theology (Boston University
School of Theology), MA in history (Harvard University), Master of Bioethics (Monash University),
and was a resident graduate at Harvard University Divinity School. Upon his return to Crete,
Fr. Makarios received his Ph.D. from the Medical School of Crete. Fr. Makarios has published
several books and articles in Greek and English on bioethical and theological topics. Currently,
Fr. Makarios is a member of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Pan-Orthodox Committee on
Bioethics. He is also the director of the Archdiocese of Crete’s radio station and the Archdiocese’s
official preacher and is an adjunct professor at the Patriarchal School of Theology in Heraklion.
Deacon Nathanael Symeonides was born in Thessalonika, Greece. Deacon Nathanael studied
psychology while at Fordham University (New York) and continued his undergraduate studies and
received his B.A. in Religious Studies at Hellenic College (Brookline, MA). Soon afterwards,
Deacon Nathanael received his Master of Divinity from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of
Theology (Brookline, MA) and his Master of Sacred Theology from Boston University School of
Theology. Currently Deacon Nathanael is pursuing a Doctorate in Theology at Boston University.
He was ordained to the deaconate of the Greek Orthodox Church on September 21, 2004.

7 Ó 2005 Blanton-Peale Institute

8 Journal of Religion and Health

now carries weight in the discussion. Theology, whether as a religious exis-

tential reflection or as a secularized and rational ethical philosophy, has found
renewed interest in the methods, quests, dilemmas, existential mandates,
moral, and social traditions.2
The question, however, is how the old and historic science of theology can
address the new science of bioethics? The reality is that the situation is
pregnant with danger. This is especially the case with theologians or clergy-
men who speak in the name of theology without having specialist knowledge.
In other words, several theologians exploit the name of theology for personal
profit in their attempt to gain the effect of relevance.
In order to avoid this trap, Christian theologians must refer back to their
sources; to the ancient ecclesiastical texts that express the long-lived tradition
and that have passed the test of history. This history is found in the texts of the
Holy Scripture and the ecclesiastical Patristic writings. The Christian tradition
in particular holds that Holy Scripture is divinely inspired and that the writings
of the Fathers breathe the inspiration and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. This
guarantees a firm approach to contemporary bioethical issues if one attempts to
shed light on them from the viewpoint of patristic mindset.
One clearly observes within the Christian Tradition the close collaboration
between Christianity and Medicine. Christian Tradition respects medical
authority and medical science draws actions from the sources of the Christian
Tradition. Throughout Christendom, one finds several faithful priests who at
the same time were medical practitioners. In fact, there has been a separate
order of saints who called ‘‘Holy Anargyroi;’’ that is, ‘‘Holy Unmercenaries.’’
These saints were medical practitioners dedicated to God, who, offered ther-
apy and any other medical aid to people without payment of money. The
creation of hospitals also began by people dedicated to God and to the service
of their neighbor. Thus, several monks dedicated entire wings in their mon-
asteries for the purpose of offering free accommodation and therapy to foreign
patients. Stanley S. Harakas emphasizes this relationship by stating:

In addition to this affirmative relationship with medicine, there was always a

reservation expressed often in the conviction that the ultimate healer was God,
and that ultimate hope was not to be placed in the physician or his science, but in
spiritual truths and realities. This was embodied in a parallel panoply of healing
practices, mediated through the spiritual life of the Church, including prayer,
sacraments, and healing saints.3

Medicine appears as a science having a common purpose with the Church

because both attempt to heal the human being. The medical practitioner,
whose life is not dedicated to the service of the neighbor, is seen as a failure.
The same applies to the Church. Her ministers are ultimately concerned with
the healing of the other. The priest engages firstly in a struggle for to minister
and heal the neighbor, and afterwards for the dissemination of the Gospel.
Very Reverend Makarios Griniezakis and Deacon Nathanael Symeonides 9

This intimate relationship between theology and medicine may cause some
to believe that bioethics is a branch of theology. There are of course, those who
hold opposite views and argue that theology has nothing to offer to medical
ethics. Representative of such line of thought, Alasdair MacIntyre, states:

Theologians still owe it to the rest of us to explain why we should not accept their
discipline as we do astrology or phrenology. The distinctiveness and importance
of what they have to say, if it is true, makes this an urgent responsibility.4

Clearly implied in MacIntyre’s ultimatum, is the conviction that theologians

have not successfully articulated the distinctiveness and importance of what
they have to say.
Theology has a great deal to offer to bioethics, and one can distinctly rec-
ognize this by the fact that scientists many times seek the opinion of theology
on difficult ethical issues. Religious or theological approaches have been a part
of the deliberations of bioethics for some time. Indeed, religious perspectives
were among the first responses to the ethical challenges of medicine.5 The
response of religion to ethical issues raised by medicine should come as no
surprise since, ‘‘religious communities have long had worthy traditions of
attention to the ordinary human events of giving support for the extraordinary
tasks of caring for those giving birth, suffering or dying.’’6
In countries that lack a plurality of religions and have one central dogma,
such as Greece, Russia, England, Italy, and the Balkan countries in general,
the theological perspective represents a significant voice in society. Indeed,
with difficulty does one find the acceptance of a new movement by society if it
lacks the blessings and the approval of the local church. In Cyprus, for
example, the government was forced to impose the testing for the Mediter-
ranean illness of Thalassaemia before marriage, because the cases of this
disease had risen to dangerous levels. This measure however, did not enter
into the consciousness of the people before the local church pronounced it as
proper and necessary. In such cases, bioethics ought to be developed and
understood as a theological discipline.
The field of ethics deals with human behavior. It is natural therefore that
ethics should be seen as a descriptive science, which attempts to analyze and
to distinguish values and actions that regulate human behavior. On the other
hand, Christian theological ethics is the branch of theology, which suggests
what we ought to do in order to shape our life with proper ‘‘ethos,’’ according to
the commandments of God, and according to the biblical teaching and the
other sources of the Christian Tradition. Speaking now of Christian ethics in
particular, we do not only mean the analysis of human behavior, but also the
solutions and therapies proposed for any ethical illness or ethical ‘‘fall.’’ In
reality, the field of Christian ethics denotes decisions of ethical judgments,
which in turn attempt to prompt the human being to move towards
sanctification.
10 Journal of Religion and Health

This is a reality not only for theological ethics, but also for medical ethics.
The expression ‘medical ethics’ usually refers to the manner in which the
medical practitioners and the nursing profession treat a patient. We can de-
scribe medical ethics as an analysis of values and actions of a medical group.
One can also claim that medical ethics is the analysis of a medical group—how
and why a particular action was taken for a particular medical case. On the
other hand, Christian ethics presupposes faith in the system of basic truths;
i.e., in the truth, which one perceives through the acceptance of the divine
presence and purpose within creation.
In Christian ethics then, health and completion have a meaning only within
the divine perspective of eternal life and sanctity. Medical care therefore,
should serve not only the proximate goal of restoring or improving bodily
health, but it should also strive to provide optimal conditions for the patient’s
spiritual growth at every stage in life. This entails curing disease, but it also
means, particularly in terminal cases, easing pain and distress by an appro-
priate means in order to allow the patient, through prayer, confession and
communion, to surrender him/herself into the hands of God. ‘‘Medical heroics’’
result all too often from the prideful attempt on the part of caregivers to avoid
‘‘failure;’’ i.e., ‘‘losing’’ the patient to death. Such hubris is responsible for a
great deal of unnecessary suffering on the part of patients and their families,
and it represents idolatry of the worst sort insofar as the medical team as-
sumed the role of God.7
Theology is present within the practice of medicine and medicine is present
in the practice of theology. It is risky, however, on the part of theology, to
interfere in the territory of medicine without having necessary knowledge and
simply presenting itself as having divine authority. If by the word theology we
mean a particular and unique line of argumentation, which demands con-
clusions that will have only religious character, then theology could rarely
exist within bioethical science. Narrow theological thoughts, restrictions, and
dry aphorisms, cannot lead to ethical axioms, to arguments, or particular
conclusions with religious character.
On the other hand, the presence of discerning and modest theologians, who
have full awareness that no science is perfect, but that one needs the support
of the other, can bring beneficial results in the field of bioethics. These results
may not be characterized as theological conclusions, yet in essence, they are
imbued with the knowledge and influence of theology. In many cases it is
better that we present and analyze theological views as if they were covered
up with a philosophical garment, instead of seeing two separate or antago-
nistic entities, that of philosophical bioethics and that of the religious or
theological bioethics.8
Having said this, one can conclude that theology’s presence in bioethical
discussion helps inform the fullness of the faithful about contemporary bio-
medical achievements, and gives the green light to the faithful to participation
in various developments of life that do not offend human nature. Today’s
Very Reverend Makarios Griniezakis and Deacon Nathanael Symeonides 11

society will benefit greatly from a theology that produces less terms of refer-
ence, fewer aphorisms, fewer restrictions. Theology must produce challenges
for working out decisions, not of religious, but of theological character. Fur-
thermore, theology will play a determinative role in the cooperation between
bioethics and other theoretical sciences. Theology can stand as the binding
link for these sciences.
Theology cal also serve as that voice that transposes religious communities
into an active participation with the broader stretches of other societies. The
Church must not remain ‘‘behind.’’ Without losing her holy things, her history
and traditions, it is possible to exhibit progress and participation with con-
temporary progress within society. Starting with questions referring to com-
mon practice in particular, theology can exert her influence through a
prophetic ministry and lay greater emphasis on the values and the alternative
solutions that others have put aside.9
Finally, theology has the ability to provide, above all, the best and most
beneficial aspects of its history and its rich tradition. It should strive to use its
rich literature in order to help supply answers to bioethical dilemmas. In
doing this, theology and bioethics can help secure the future of all human life.

Notes
1. C. Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Volkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaum (s.l.: s.n., 1992).
2. Petros Giatzakis, ‘‘Life as survival and death as tragedy’’, Synaxis 68 (1998): 39.
3. Stanley S. Harakas, Wholeness of Faith and Life: Orthodox Christian Ethics: Part Three,
(Brookline: Holy Cross, 1999) 88.
4. Alasdair MacIntyre, ‘‘Theology, Ethics and the Ethics of Medicine and Health Care’’, Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy 4 (1979): 435–443.
5. Scott B. Rae and Paul M. Cox, Bioethics: a Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age, (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmand, 1999) 9.
6. Allen Verhey, ed., Religion and Medical Ethics: Looking Back, Looking Forward, (Grand Rapids:
William. B. Eerdmand, 1996) 2.
7. John Breck, Sacred Gift (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1998) 16.
8. Lisa C. Sowle, ‘‘Can Theology have a Role in ‘‘Public’’ Bioethica Discoursr?’’, On Moral and
Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics (ed. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey,
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998) 58.
9. Lisa C. Sowle, ‘‘Can Theology have a Role in ‘‘Public’’ Bioethica Discoursr?’’, On Moral and
Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics (ed. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey,
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998) 62.