The Pharmacological Problem Plaguing Humanity by The Rev. Canon Allan S. Graves Rector, Trinity Anglican Church Mount Vernon Washington

Matthew 13:24

 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ” I wonder how much the average person ever considered the notion that so much of what we do as a society is solution-oriented? Think about it. From politics to medicine, from (medical) technology to social engineering and even religion, life for most of us is oriented toward problem solving. We have numerous problems to solve: hunger and homelessness, disease, war, famine, the list is endless.

I only recently added another category: schisogenesis. This term is defined as a tendency to divide, either consciously of unconsciously,, Schismogenesis is a term in anthropology that describes the formation of social divisions and differentiation. Literally meaning ‘creation of division’, the term derives from the Greek words σχίσμα (skhísma, ‘cleft’; borrowed into English as schism), and γένεσις (génesis, ‘generation, creation’). The term was introduced in the 1930s by anthropologist Gregory Bateson and has been applied to various fields. The term almost seems to insist that there are those who wish to divide. Indeed, I was introduced to a book called Divided we Stand? I thought it was called united we stand. Is division a good thing or a bad thing?

Consider a few examples.

Adolph Hitler saw a problem, undesirable traits in some people. His solution, although outrageous, was, for him, a way to rid humanity of the problems associated with the genetic transmission of undesirable traits.

During the height of the Eugenics movement of the 1920’s, we knew enough of genetics to be absolutely dangerous. Undesirable behavior, it was believed, was in the “blood.” That was the problem. The solution for Hitler: keep the people who exhibit undesirable traits from contributing to the gene pool.

As disturbing as this story is, many believed in his solutions. We would not be discussing Hitler today had he not been the purveyor of such outrageous acts for us in the modern world to grapple with. It was, however, for Hitler, a solution. It helps us to understand just how desperate mankind is for real and ultimate solutions.

Doctors and medical researchers are desperately involved in seeking solutions to diseases: heart disease, cancer and various neurological disorders that wreck humanity. We have had just enough success in these areas to convince ourselves that solutions can be found, given enough time, money, and other resources.

The problem, I would argue, with all human solutions is that they are pharmacological. By that, I suggest considering the Greek word, pharmakon, which translated, means solutions that are both remedial and toxic. This is the reason the term is used to describe all kinds of drugs we use for all the maladies and diseases we suffer from. The obvious example is chemotherapy. The good news about chemotherapy is that it works. The bad news is that it works!

For many cancer patients, chemotherapy is the recommended, and, for some, the only treatment option. That being said, increasing numbers of cancer patients are asking the hard questions about the use of this remedy with the accompanying toxic side effects, which includes, but is not limited to…death.

I would submit to you that, like cancer patients, we all are making choices about the solutions we embrace. When dealing with these solutions the question remains; is the toxicity worth the remediation?

Is food a good or bad? We constantly hear reports of a certain food being good, and then, sometime later, is suddenly bad. Is there a truth to be had? Is it possible that researchers are simply finding the truths they are looking for?

Sunshine causes wrinkles and sometimes skin cancer. That being said, if you live in a part of the world where the days are short and clouds hide the sun, and you will know how important exposure to sunshine actually is.

There are many other examples. I want to suggest another example of this reality: the immune system. I’m not sure how to describe the immune system. It’s omnipresent. Unlike the circulatory system, for example, which consists of the heart and blood vessels, etc. the immune system just exists, it’s all over the body. It is there, ostensibly, to keep us alive. Simply stated, we cannot live without it. However, growing evidence is suggesting that we cannot live with it either. Research is revealing in disturbing ways, the role of the immune system and its involvement in the onset and progression of diseases, including heart disease. Without this becoming a medical school exercise, the immune system can cause excess inflammation that, on the one hand, keep us alive, and on the other, cause other toxic side effects leading to various diseases.

The immune system is pharmacological; capable of maintaining life and capable of causing illness and even death. Considering all this, we do not have the option of doing without an immune system. That said, I have known some who would have liked to try!

There is another extreme example. If, however, you are thinking, you might yourself be able to think of your own examples: food (is it good or bad? or both?), sex (we love it, we make children with it, but recognize that it is one of the best ways to transmit some of the worst diseases known to mankind), marriage, (need I comment on marriage?), the role of government (and the disturbing notion that we humans recognize the need to have our behaviors governed).

This brings me to another thought. Even at the genetic level, which seems to have an agenda of its own, there is solution-oriented activity, with potentially disastrous results.

Let me explain. Malaria was and is, for people living in various places in the world, a deadly disease. Through a series of evolutionary (and by that I mean adaptive) processes, which made it difficult for the parasite that causes malaria to infect the red blood cells of its victims, people over time became resistant to the disease. Good news, right? Keep in mind that, according to geneticist, malaria had the propensity to wipe out large numbers of people, and so the idea of genetic mutations that could bring beneficial outcomes was not especially surprising to researchers. The toxic side effects were, however, surprising.

In order for the red blood cells to become resistant to infection, the mutation produced a new shape of the cells. Instead of the recognizable shape of the red blood cell, the genetic mutation caused changes resulting in a sickle-like shape. With the reality that many potential victims of malaria were spared the tragic reality of that disease, there was a new disease that evolved from that very mutation: sickle cell anemia. That’s profound. That’s corruption! Even as we adapt to new and potentially lethal environmental challenges, not to just our existence, but to the existence of other species, we find this pharmacological reality.

Our solutions are working, but with potentially disastrous results. Is there another answer?

I could go on with countless examples but I want to end this paper with a theological premise. The Old Testament tells us that mankind is Fallen, that somehow God’s creation was corrupted. I wonder if we really know what that means. It may help some of us to comprehend events like the shootings in Newtown Connecticut the tragic consequences of the Hitler era, viruses, earthquakes, fire, hurricanes, cancer, heart disease, evil and all the problems that we want to solve.

Christians believe that the world was corrupted by sin, which according to Nicholas Platinga, the author of “Not the Way it’s Supposed to Be,” results in a “corruption of shalom, peace” I think that this notion of corruption needs to go much further, as it helps us to understand that simply trying to fix problems as they appear is feeble. It helps us to comprehend the idea that this creation requires something much bigger and more profound than the pharmacological solutions we humans provide.

Indeed, our solutions, as good as they are, are pharmacological precisely because of the brokenness and corruption of the world. We solve one problem and create another. That’s a corrupted world.

Christian theology maintains that there is that ultimate solution. It began on Christmas eve and, on Easter morning, the process of God’s new creation began. I am speaking to the Christian narrative in the New Testament message that, because of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, we will ultimately realize the new world; redeemed and perfected, in which our feeble solutions are no longer needed. No need for cancer cures, cures for heart disease or Parkinson’s disease. No flawed corrupt governments.

As we look forward to the “life of the world to come,” we do so knowing that it is then that death will be no longer have dominion over us, no more disease, school shootings, natural calamities. No. All of that will be taken away. God will wipe the tears from our eyes.

A postscript:

As a theology student I remember a professor whom I deeply respected. He was a wise man. He was describing various situations which would take too long to unpack, but he summarized by saying, “what we thought was good turned out to be bad, and what we thought was bad turned out to be good.”

Wise as he was, I would never have thought of offering this professor any of my own thoughts. If I had, I would have responded in this way: “what we thought was good, turned out to be good and bad; what we thought was bad, turned out be to bad and good.”

Modernism and the Great Enlightenment era made us believe that we could be the architects of our utopian world, that we would eventually realize ultimate solutions. If only things were really good or bad, our solutions would work and have fewer, if any, unintended consequences. Put another way, we wouldn’t need God!

I would like to commend a scriptural reference: Jesus’ parable of the weeds. After planting wheat, the farmer discovers, much to his consternation, that weeds have infected his fields. Tempted to rid his fields of the chaff, he decides that he will simply remove the weeds. The master intercedes and recommends that he wait, for in trying to eliminate the chaff, he would also destroy the wheat. The solution; let both grow together until the day of harvest. Then, the two shall be separated. Problem solved?

another postscript (November 2019)

I was going through boxes of stuff from my storage room (again, consider the wheat and chaff, lots of good stuff intermixed with stuff that needs to be thrown out). I came across a paper that I wrote as an undergraduate student on the topic of oncogenes (genes that cause cancer). In this paper I was describing the various processes of cellular functioning: cell adhesion, contact inhibition, apoptosis, all pointing to the proteins that were being created by the (onco)genes and their effect on the plasma membrane of various cells. After all of the analysis, I wrote something that I would have thought irrelevant back then: oncogenes, while apparently causing cancer also play a role in the normal functioning of the cell! What? How can that be? They play a role in both cancer and normal cellular functioning?

Perhaps this notion might shed some light on God’s seeming inability or unwillingness to heal cancer. I’ve heard many claim that God is either impotent or uncaring. This above perspective might offer the reader another option: If God did cure cancer, what would that look like at the biological level? What would be the pharmacological outcome? Could he simple remove the gene that causes cancer? What impact would that have on normal cellular functioning? We must accept that God is subject to the confines of his own creation, a creation which groans for redemption.

It is, indeed a broken, corrupted world. It seems that all God might do is start over. No human solutions needed. No corruption, no fallenness, no disease, no tears.

another postscript:

An article in the WSJ indicated that a pharmacological company was in the process of seeking government approval for a drug that would treat, and perhaps cure, sickle cell anemia. The drug apparently acts by altering the shape of the red blood cell back to it’s normal, recognizable shape. Problem solved, right?

And yet another postscript:

The corona virus has taught me a new lesson. For as long as I began paying attention, viruses were “bad.” They had no redeeming value. They cause disease. Unlike bacterium, which, although they can and do cause death, don’t seem to have the death of the host as the agenda. Viruses, by their behavior seems to want to kill the host. I was wrong. It turns out that the traits that make these ultimate parasites so effective in transmitting disease also make them an essential part of our own genetic makeup. In other words, like all of the other things discussed above, we humans would not be alive without them! O dear God!

We wait for thy loving kindness O Lord…come Lord Jesus, Come Holy Spirit. Redeem your creation. She groans to be redeemed and renewed. Amen.