Human history is marked by man’s pursuit of survival, community, ingenuity, and triumph. From the earliest days of existence, people have tried their best to flourish in a vulnerable world filled with challenges and struggles, none more dominant than sickness and death. The finite reality that sickness and death eventually overtake every person has driven man to make technological progress in prolonging life and resisting death. The determination and creativity required and achieved by humanity to do this have led to incredible steps forward in human progress. However, it has also caused significant harm to many through the misuse of resources and mistreatment of people. For example, one can look at the horrendous scientific experiments perpetrated by the Nazis on Jewish captives during the holocaust or the United States’ treatment of at-risk individuals in the Tuskegee studies. Because of these harms, technological advancement has come under increasingly significant evaluation. How people are treated matters considering humanity’s pursuit of the future. The desire to unpack and value the question “What is right in a biological study and how do we apply it properly as technology advances?” has led to the crucial development of the field of bioethics. With that said, how should “right” be defined, and who determines it?
The driving force behind the development of bioethics inquiry comes from the aspiration to honor the embodiment and desires of human life. In his work What It Means to Be Human, O. Carter Snead states: “Public bioethics is fundamentally concerned with human vulnerability, dependence, frailty, and finitude.”[1] Bioethics is concerned with authentically caring for others in a community that faces impairment and death together. In other words, bioethics is a matter of love and its power in action. While various conceptions of bioethics exist, bioethics as “love and power in action” emphasizes relational responsibility, care, and justice, while other conceptions—such as principlism, utilitarianism, and biopolitics—frame bioethics through rules, consequences, character, or power structures. Rather than privileging one approach, a balanced view recognizes that bioethics must integrate personal moral agency, systemic realities, and ethical frameworks to address complex issues in life and health. Love is the most powerful force in the modern world to accomplish this. Every human being craves it, and no human being can avoid the pursuit of it. It drives good and bad human decision-making processes and impacts societal culture, values, and goals.
However, love itself has limitless definitions in today’s world, causing extreme harm and confusion in how to best approach bioethics topics. If love is left to be defined by every individual, it can be damaging and damning to both themselves and humanity. Because of this, it is crucial that decisions regarding bioethics stem from a reliable set of values rooted in consistent truth rather than random choice. A suitable and esteemed approach to love, appreciating what it does and does not allow, leads to healthy and helpful decisions. This paper argues that a proper view of the theological “doctrine of love” necessitates approaching others in love with the virtue of benevolence as the guiding moral principle rather than relativism. A perfect and authoritative source must be considered when defining and applying the concept of love to bioethics issues.
The purpose of bioethics is to discern how best to approach and apply new and existing biological developments in ways that honor humanity, protect individuals, and bring the best of said developments to human use. While discouraging immoral use of clinical, scientific, and technological advances is part of bioethics, championing the proper use of human ingenuity is also part and parcel of the field. This is a key concept to understanding bioethics methodology, as bioethicists are not serving as the “morality police” or whistleblowers. They pursue the proper approach and use of human advancement. This is often done through philosophical thinking, inquiry, and positional modeling based on methods engaging human thought, morality, and virtue.
Ethics and morality are intimately tied together yet markedly different. In today’s culture, the words are often used in the same way. However, this method is akin to using a hammer for a screw and a screwdriver for a nail. Both tools are used to hold things together, yet they are meant to be implemented differently. In his work Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, Scott Rae states: “Most people use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. Technically, morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, and ethics refers to the process of determining right and wrong. In other words, morality deals with moral knowledge and ethics with moral reasoning.”[2] Morality is what we know and where we end up, while ethics is what we do with it. Ethical inquiry unpacks morality and discerns the best way to approach, apply, or resist moral knowledge to better humanity. However, the effect of ethics is not just about results.
As shared above, various methods have been developed to approach ethics and moral reasoning. In this work, the primary system that will be focused on falls under the category of aretaic ethics and is called “Virtue Theory” or “Virtue Ethics.” This system focuses on the substance of a person’s morality rather than how they use it. In his book Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, Wayne Grudem states that virtue ethics “emphasize not whether specific actions are right or wrong, but the moral character of the individual.”[3] What comes out of the human heart is determined by what is in there in the first place. Because morality seeks to discern what makes something right or wrong, virtue ethics provides the most holistic and adaptable method for navigating that answer. Unlike deontology, which rigidly applies universal moral rules regardless of context, or utilitarianism, which focuses solely on maximizing outcomes, virtue ethics prioritizes the development of character and moral wisdom, enabling individuals to make decisions that reflect both moral integrity and situational nuance. Virtue ethics provides a more robust, flexible, and morally compelling approach to ethics, ensuring that ethical decisions are made with wisdom, moral character, and human dignity in mind.
Furthermore, Grudem points out that virtues themselves are “habitual inward dispositions to act, feel, respond, and think in morally good ways.”[4] They emphasize the character qualities that individuals and society at large should pursue. The character of the individual(s) deciding and the validity their virtues bring shape the bioethics discussion table. Morality and ethics are intimately connected; however, through the lens of virtue ethics, we can take the most responsible approach to difficult and decisive bioethics issues.
With ethics and bioethics defined and the relationship between morality and virtue established, reflective perspective during ethical reasoning must be considered, particularly concerning relativism and benevolence. The Pocket Dictionary of Ethics defines relativism as “the assertion that all beliefs, opinions, judgments or claims to truth are conditioned by and dependent on contingent factors connected to the persons or groups that espouse them.”[5] In short, all decisions and their moral implications depend on individual circumstances, needs, and desires. One of the largest proponents of this approach to ethics was Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian Christian and American professor who founded situational ethics theory in the 1960s. His groundbreaking yet controversial work Situation Ethics: The New Morality blazed the trail for liberal philosophical thinking and swung the doors wide open for relativism, specifically situational ethics, to sink into Western ethical thought.
Fletcher asserts that situation ethics is a balanced partnership between natural law and Scriptural Law found in the Bible. According to him, “the situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems.”[6] His main argument is that love is the primary factor in moral decision-making and the necessity to show absolute love to the person being cared for. This may seem appealing at first; however, it is a bit of an ethical bait-and-switch. Fletcher adamantly argued that the need to love another person stems from that person’s definition of love and needs, regardless of natural law and Scriptural Law. A person should choose another person’s view of love, even if it is contrary to natural logic to other Scriptural truth. His repeated go-to verse for supporting this concept is Romans 13:8, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (ESV). He hammers this home when he states the situationist “is prepared in any situation to compromise them [ethical maxims] or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so.”[7] Simply put, do whatever the other person wants, as that is the most loving thing to do.
While this approach will be critiqued later, it needs to be stated that this is a dangerous and harmful position and not theologically sound. Human feelings and emotions can be deceptive. A child may believe they can fly if they flap their arms hard enough, but a responsible parent would never let them try it by jumping off their roof. What feels best does not mean it is best. While Fletcher’s desire to love well is admittedly noble, his view of what that means is deeply flawed. However, there is a better way found in love as a defined virtue rather than an ambiguous concept.
Love should be a core consideration of any ethical system, yet one’s view of love and how it operates actively must be engaged appropriately. Benevolence—the attitude of intending or the action of doing good toward others, often expressed through beneficence (charity)—is the proverbial yin to relativism’s yang. Like relativism, benevolence is rooted in doing what is best for the individual, but its foundation differs in that it stems from a moral commitment rather than subjective preference. The ethical line of demarcation forms at the impasse of how love should be viewed and implemented, as love is the inner disposition that informs ethical action, while benevolence serves as one of its external expressions.
By pursuing love through the virtue of charity, a person is driven to love another person through methodology guided by the confines of moral character, not individual desire alone. The principles of love result in virtues that do good and best help others. In his work The Christian in Medical Practice, Edmund Pellegrino, a respected Catholic theologian and bioethicist, states: “It is the virtue of charity that above all shapes the whole of Christian medical morals, as it does every other aspect of moral life.”[8] Pellegrino championed love as a key component of ethical decision-making, emphasizing that it should be embraced and employed through beneficence—charity that works in tandem with Scripture. Christians are to focus on the character and attributes of the person rather than the results of their actions. By addressing character, the results will change. Comparing the concept of love found in the virtue of charity to situational ethics, Pellegrino argues that situational ethics falls short because it “does not relate the situation to the virtue of the individual and to moral principles that cannot be violated.”[9]
Furthermore, unlike situational ethics, the virtue of charity advances the important task of bringing together doctrinal and practical applications. An individual is best cared for when the caregiver seeks the best for them, and what is best must come from various interdependent absolutes that work together to care well for others. Logically, people in positions of need, such as those experiencing suffering, want healing, yet they do not always think clearly. What they want may not be the best. For example, one experiencing debilitating dementia may want to be left alone even when they forget who and where they are. The caregiver clinging to situational ethics could choose to leave the room, opening that person to harm. The caregiver embracing the virtue of charity, however, understands that true charity is not merely about fulfilling desires but discerning what genuinely promotes the person’s well-being. Guided by prudence, charity seeks not just to relieve suffering but to act in a way that empowers, protects, and upholds human dignity. Who loves the person the most, the person who abandons in good faith or stays in protective faith? With good intentions, people pursue relativism thinking what one wants is best. Reality shows that this is simply not true. Relativism divides and separates, while benevolence unites in pursuit of love and care. Charity is best.
So far, this work has covered key definitions that will aid the reader in understanding and discerning the upcoming discussion of the doctrine of love and its implications on approaches to bioethics issues. Embracing the virtue of benevolence proves far more beneficial for both individual care and communal guidance than yielding to relativism, which distorts true compassion by prioritizing subjective desires over genuine wellbeing. Before moving on, it is important to detail, in short, the ethical methodology used by the author to approach the doctrine of love. The ethical method used in this work is derived from Ken Magnuson’s decision-making model and further extrapolated using Scott Rae’s work.[10] When approaching bioethics issues, the author has utilized a three-step process: (1) pre-reflection, (2) reflection & deliberation, and (3) deciding. The pre-reflection phase considers worldview, biblical perceptions, and placement of the situation. The reflection & deliberation phase engages facts, determines ethical issues involved, and determines the virtues that impact the issue. Those virtues are then compared to alternative ethical options for the issue at hand. Lastly, the deciding phase submits the decision to evaluation and critique by comparable works.
Finally, the Biblical method employed in this essay should also be mentioned. The author believes in the complete authority of Scripture rooted in its infallibility and inerrancy. With that said, the biblical method began with the ethical issue at hand and its relationship to the doctrine of love, examined through biblical, biblical-theological, and theological perspectives. A biblical perspective engages directly with Scripture itself, analyzing texts in their historical, literary, and grammatical contexts to determine what the Bible explicitly teaches. A biblical-theological perspective moves beyond individual passages to trace thematic and doctrinal developments across redemptive history, showing how love is progressively revealed through the Old and New Testaments. A theological perspective synthesizes biblical teachings with historical, systematic, and philosophical theology, integrating insights from church tradition and reason to form a more comprehensive doctrinal understanding. This approach was carried out through Old Testament principles found in the Decalogue, Jesus Christ’s extrapolation of them in the Sermon on the Mount, Pauline teachings on the doctrine, and its effect on eternal perspective. It should also be shared that this was done in prayer and hope that the resulting work helps others “love well” in truth, boldness, and humility. With ethical and biblical methods shared and key terminology established, the doctrine of love can be approached.
There is an awful song (author’s opinion) from the 1990s titled “What is Love” by the artist Haddaway.[11] The infectious song shares a story about a man who has given his love to a woman but received no love in return. The gentleman stresses that he no longer knows what is right or wrong because the person he cherishes does not care about him. While meant to be a simple love story of expression, the artist unknowingly hit on the deep truth that another person should not define love. Our definition of how we should be loved also always falls unreliably short in misery. Love cannot be left to the definitions of the individual or collective, so where can one get a sense of what love truly is and how it should be viewed? While many philosophical and religious experts have tried to answer this question over history, the Christian Bible has been the best source of defining what love is, what it implies, and how mankind is to love.
The challenge with doing any work on the Biblical doctrine of love is that God has given us so much wisdom and insight about love. He has done this through different cultural and comparative settings in the Old and New Testaments. With that said, key themes and insights about love can be extrapolated from the Bible. In his work The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, D. A. Carson shares five different ways the love of God is referenced in the Bible, including “his intra-Trinitarian love, his providential love, his yearning and salvific love that pleads with sinners, his elective love, and his conditional love.” [12] This work will help readers pursue a proper view of the doctrine through these categories to lead them to benevolent decision-making. However, first, considering what the Bible says about love helps set the foundation for future discussion.
The Bible has a lot to say about love, which is a gift. There are specific core attributes about love that the Bible is clear on from first glance. First, love in the Old Testament is used in various ways but was mostly used as a verb. In the Shema (Deut 6:4–5), it was used to practice and express adoration to God. The Hebrew word used is ahavah, stemming from the root word ahev, meaning “to give.” It is about relationships, particularly between two people, and their affection for one another. How one treats and cares for another is meant to be mirrored in how God treats and cares for humanity. It is an indwelt response to kindness in each human being from God and who he is in his nature.
As a noun, the Hebrew word for love most used is chesed, meaning “steadfast love” or loyalty. It was often used to illustrate acts of mercy, good deeds, or fellowship (1 Sam 20:8; 2 Chr 32:32; Neh 13:14; Hos 4:2). Relating to God’s love mirrors God’s loyalty to humanity as he protects us from evil and harm, choosing us as his valued creation. This loyalty is foundational to his promises (covenants) and why he can be trusted (Deut 7:12; Mic 7:20; 2 Sam 7:15; 1 Chr 17:13–14). In contrast to how love is often misapplied in modern culture—reduced to fleeting emotions, self-interest, or mere tolerance—chesed reflects a covenantal, enduring commitment that prioritizes faithfulness over feelings. Today, love is frequently equated with unquestioning affirmation or romantic passion alone, leading to misunderstandings of its deeper moral and relational significance. This lack of theological clarity has contributed to confusion even among Christians. However, chesed provides a biblical corrective by illustrating acts of mercy, good deeds, and faithful fellowship (1 Sam 20:8; 2 Chr 32:32; Neh 13:14; Hos 4:2). Relating to God’s love mirrors his loyalty to humanity as he protects us from evil and harm, choosing us as his valued creation. This loyalty is foundational to his promises (covenants) and why he can be trusted (Deut 7:12; Mic 7:20; 2 Sam 7:15; 1 Chr 17:13–14). Because of his enduring trustworthiness, a proper Hebraic response to God is living in an active posture of love that honors his commandments, follows the Law, and loves others as he commanded. If one maintains this relationship with God, they will be blessed (Isa 55:3).
The New Testament builds on top of the Old Testament’s perspective of love. Historically, love has been broken down into four categories based on Greek words used for love, Philia (brotherly love), Eros (romantic love), Storge (family love), and Agape (divine love). However, this work will focus on the two-word groups used directly in the New Testament, agapaō and phileō. Both words were used synonymously by New Testament writers to address good and bad things, while the word agapē was only used to address positive things. It refers to God’s love (Luke 11:42; John 5:42; Rom 5:8; Jude 1:21), a person’s love for God (Rev 2:4), and love for others (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:13). Furthermore, whenever the Greek adjectives for love, agapētos or philos, are used, they reference friendship (Luke 15:6, 9, 29; 23:12; 1 John 2:7; 3:21; 4:7).[13]
The New Testament illustrates that the best way to know love (noun, verb, and adjective) is to look at Jesus, as he is love incarnate. Jesus’s relationship with God the Father is illustrated in love. The way Jesus interpreted the Law of the Old Testament was in the illustration of love. He stated that the greatest commandment is “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matt 22:37–39, NASB). How Jesus treated others and expressed truth was done in the illustration of love. Jesus lived in example and action through the illustration of love. To bring further clarity, he gave a new commandment: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35, ESV) Love is an essential virtue of a disciple. Lastly, Jesus showed that love is sacrificial in his death, burial, and resurrection. Giving up things for others, even our lives, is the purest form of love (John 12:25S).
More can be said about the Bible’s teaching on love, particularly in the epistles and Revelation. However, the epistles will be used to showcase the biblical-theological perspective the Bible has on love. The apostle Paul speaks to love quite a bit in his letters. He encourages his readers to imitate Christ’s love for one another (Rom 15:2–3; Eph 5:1–2, 25–28), embrace a freedom that loves others, not sin (Rom 6:15; Gal 5:13), and pursue love as their unifier (1 Cor 14:1; Eph 4:1–6; Phil 2:1–4; Col 3:13–14). Christian life and community should be self-sacrificing, patient, and kind rather than rude, envious, or arrogant (1 Cor 13:4–7). However, in Paul’s teachings and the other epistles, the theological perspective of the entire Bible needs to be combined with the biblical one, overarching themes throughout the Bible that support what the Bible states directly within the text. 1 Corinthians 13 will be used as an example.
When readers look at 1 Corinthians 13:4–7, it would be easy to assume that love is the most important thing in a Christian’s life, particularly how they live and act. While this is slightly true, it is not entirely correct. Scripture teaches that love is rooted in relationship, requiring a response in responsibility. Christians must avoid allowing culture to define love for them. In his work You Are What You Love, James K. A. Smith states: “Spirit-led formation of our loves is a recalibration of the heart, a reorientation of our loves by unlearning all the tacit bearings we’ve absorbed from other cultural practices.”[14] When one looks back to the Hebrew view of love in the Shema, the ability to practice love with accountability in mind is rooted in remembering truth. This truth, shown perfectly in Christ, sometimes comes in the form of correction, discipline, and even suffering. Relativism can be falsely and easily embraced without looking at the Pauline text from a theological perspective. Paul himself shows readers that they are to pursue other gifts in addition to love (1 Cor 14:1). Love needs to be approached with the entirety of Scripture.
This brings us to a theological perspective. Looking back to D. A. Carson’s five themes of God’s love (intra-Trinitarian love, providential love, yearning salvific love, elective love, and conditional love), the Bible systematically shows us key insights into how God uses his love for his glory and our benefit. First, God’s love for his Son, in tandem with his Spirit, ensures the plan of redemption (John 5:19–29). Those who know the Son know the Father. 1 John 4:8, 16 announces the beautiful reality that, because of God’s loving nature, when we abide in love, we abide in God and honor him in doing so. Second, God’s love protects us in his plan and how he chooses to use our lives to showcase his love. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 paints the picture of how God’s glory is manifest in the obedient and loving responses of those who live in his Son’s kingdom. Third, God’s love shown perfectly in Jesus on the cross compels those who follow him to respond in love rather than live in sin, telling others about the gift of grace (2 Cor 5:14–15). Fourth, God compels us to love without angst but in empowerment. Our ability to love comes from the fact that God loved us first (1 John 4:19). Finally, God’s love fosters refinement and sanctification. Humanity is not left to run amuck alone but to be constantly disciplined and made holy to love better as God’s children.
These theological themes can be found throughout Scripture, showing God’s grand plan for love, which comes from who he is and what he desires. As Carson shares, “all this has transformed us, so that we in turn perceive the sheer rightness of the first commandment—to love God with heart and soul and mind and strength.” [15] Humanity can see purity in making decisions by looking to God’s love. By applying biblical, biblical-theological, and theological perspectives of love properly, ethical inquiries can arrive at answers that show the rightness Carson mentions. This rightness is marked by serving humanity with the loving truths shown, necessitating reactions that reflect them. This can only be done with a love that has the other person’s best interest at heart, guided by loving charity, truth, service, and sacrifice.
The Doctrine of Love is rooted in God’s nature (1 John 4:8) and is demonstrated throughout Scripture as a steadfast, covenantal commitment (chesed), expressing mercy, loyalty, and faithfulness (Deut 7:12; Mic 7:20; 2 Sam 7:15; 1 Chr 17:13–14). Unlike cultural distortions that reduce love to fleeting emotions, self-interest, or mere tolerance, biblical love is an active, enduring devotion that prioritizes faithfulness over feelings. In the Old Testament, God’s love is revealed in his covenantal promises, his protection of his people, and his call to obedience—most clearly seen in the Shema, where loving God is inseparable from following his commandments (Deut 6:4–5). This Old Testament foundation prepares the way for the ultimate fulfillment of divine love in Jesus Christ, where love is revealed not as a departure from chesed but as its fullest expression (John 3:16, Phil 2:5–8). Jesus’ sacrificial love (agape—selfless, unconditional, and seeking the highest good of others) embodies truth, grace, and justice in action, culminating in his atonement, where he bore the sins of humanity (Rom 5:8). As Christ-followers, we are called to mirror this love in our daily lives, extending grace even when undeserved (Luke 6:35) and living out a love that transforms relationships, ethics, and the believer’s mission in the world (Matt 22:37–39, 1 Cor 13:4–7).
To illustrate the ethical implications that the doctrine of love places on bioethics issues, the issue of prenatal testing and diagnosis regarding disability will be used. Prenatal testing is a continuously developing technology used by various clinicians today to detect genetic, physical, and mental anomalies in an embryo. This is often done using ultrasound technology, blood tests, and family history assessments. If there is concern that genetic disorders exist, invasive diagnostic tests can be implemented to determine if disabilities or genetic issues are present. On the Mayo Clinic’s prenatal testing info page, they state, “Some diagnostic tests carry a slight risk of miscarriage. These tests include chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis.”[16] If an expecting mother chooses to get these tests, there is a risk that her child could pass away even if no defect exists. If a genetic defect or disability does appear, the Mayo Clinic offers that “if prenatal testing suggests that your baby might have a genetic condition, you could be faced with certain decisions. For example, you might have to think about whether to continue the pregnancy.” This would be advocacy for abortion, shallow counsel at best. While they leave the decision to the parent, the clinician will help the parent decide.
For application, this work will approach the issue from the lens of a mother who just learned her child might have genetic problems that could lead to the child being born with disabilities as well as the decision-making challenges a clinician would face while treating her. Two ethical questions will be discussed regarding this issue with the doctrine of love in consideration. First, is it ethically permissible for the mother to request prenatal testing, knowing that certain invasive methods carry a risk of miscarriage, whereas non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) does not? Do different ethical concerns arise between these options? Second, if the child is diagnosed with a genetic disability, what should the proper clinical counsel be from the doctor? Additionally, a distinction must be made between prenatal screening (which provides risk assessments for genetic conditions without confirming a diagnosis) and prenatal testing (which aims to provide a definitive diagnosis). Do the same ethical concerns apply to both forms of testing, or do they differ in terms of informed consent, potential harms, and ethical justifications? Thus, while screening may be ethically neutral when used for preparation, invasive testing must be evaluated through the lens of moral responsibility and love’s call to protect life. Prenatal screening, which assesses risk rather than providing a definitive diagnosis, does not pose the same ethical challenges as invasive testing, which directly risks the child’s life. To honor the theme of this work, an ethical response comparison for each question will be offered through situational ethics (relativism) and virtue ethics (benevolence) perspectives.
The mother has an incredibly difficult choice to make here. She will need to decide how to best love and care for her child while balancing her health and desires. If married he also faces input from her husband regarding his desires for the child. If unmarried, she faces the ethical implications alone without supporting counsel outside of clinical environments. A situational ethicist perspective would lean towards the mother’s choice and desire for happiness. Since situationists traditionally hold the mother’s value higher than the fetus’s, any choice she makes for her betterment is what’s best. Depending on the situation, the clinician, father, and fetus have no say in whether this child should be put at risk due to testing. The mother’s greatest love, either for herself or her child, would determine the act’s validity. Furthermore, if the child dies due to testing, the mother would not be deemed morally negligent to a situationist if her primary motivation was love for that child. If the mother can justify that her actions were based on love, she is ethically clear.
The virtue of charity, rightly seen through the doctrine of love, would say otherwise. Her intentions and motivations determine the act the mother takes. It isn’t about the decision itself but the thinking behind the decision. In his work Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions, David VanDrunen states: “When faced with choices that cannot be labeled inherently good or evil, the intentions and motivations behind the choice are morally relevant.”[17] For illustration purposes, it will be assumed that the mother has a genuine love for her child. She must discern what that love is and why it should compel her to pursue life for her child.
A proper approach to love, as demonstrated through chesed (steadfast, covenantal love) in the Old Testament and agape (selfless, sacrificial love) in the New Testament, compels the mother to embrace her child regardless of any potential disability, affirming the inherent dignity of life. Love, in its highest form, is not conditional upon health, ability, or perceived societal norms but is rooted in faithfulness, commitment, and the divine call to protect and cherish life (Deut 7:12; 1 John 4:8). This love drives her to pursue the relationship she already has with her baby—a bond that reflects the loyalty, care, and sacrificial devotion that biblical love requires. A proper understanding of love reshapes expectations, compelling her to joyfully relinquish preconceived notions of fulfillment and embrace the unique joy this child will bring. The virtues she aspires to embody as a mother—care, kindness, compassion, sacrifice, and protection—are not contingent upon the outcome of a test but are already affirmed in her calling to love unconditionally. Thus, love compels her to trust, protect, and uphold the life of her child, knowing that no diagnosis changes the sacredness of that bond.
Furthermore, she graciously considers her husband’s wants, giving up her desires for control for her Adam, as he gives up control and dominance over his Eve. In his work The Christian Art of Dying: Learning from Jesus, Allen Verhey states: “It is faith that exists as hope and works as charity. It is faith that evokes humility and the freedom from anxiety about ‘worldly’ things.”[18] The most loving thing to do for the parents is to protect the child at all costs, sacrifice their fears, and trust that who they want to be will be true regardless of what happens. If the reason and motive for taking the test is to determine whether they should keep the child of not, they skip the test. However, if their pursuit of the test to is prepare to give the child a supportive and thriving future regardless of the results, it would be permissible for them to take the test.
Finally, love is vulnerability, a willingness to embrace uncertainty, sacrifice control, and remain steadfast in the face of fear. Love requires an openness to the unknown, the uncontrollable, and the imperfect, which is why true love cannot be conditioned on certainty or predictability. Biblical love, whether expressed in chesed or agape, is not transactional but relational, not risk-averse but steadfastly committed (Deut 7:12; 1 John 4:8). In the context of prenatal testing for disability, this means that a mother’s love is most fully realized not in seeking to eliminate risk or control outcomes but in embracing the sacredness of life in all its inherent vulnerability. If love demands faithfulness over fear, then prenatal testing must be approached with an ethic that does not seek to eliminate the child if the diagnosis is difficult but rather to prepare for the child with the virtues of courage, compassion, and trust. Love does not seek to escape vulnerability but to embrace it as the pathway to deeper commitment and self-giving sacrifice—a love that mirrors the very nature of divine love itself. This can be perfectly seen in Christ on the cross.
In the case where a parent chooses to have prenatal testing and a diagnosis of a disability is present, the perspective and moral responsibility of the clinician come into focus. The doctor’s consult in this situation can be a life-and-death game changer. There is a tragic stigma in the disabled community that they are burdens rather than complete human beings who contribute to society. In his work Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity, Amos Yong rails against the radical view that “since fetuses projected to be severely or profoundly handicapped will never attain to full human status anyway, their infanticide is ethically justified.”[19] This is not an overtly common approach by clinicians currently. However, it is a growing practice as the issue of abortion becomes more normalized. With all empathy, clinicians are placed in difficult situations where their main concern, the patient, is seeking help. With that said, the clinician is encouraged to remember and wrestle with their first love, a medical practice that lovingly and boldly cares for the wholeness and wellbeing of their patient. Looking at the doctrine of love will help the clinician navigate a potentially tragic situation in approach and encounter Christ-honoring results that embrace man being made in God’s image.
As seen in Jesus, approaching the reality that love requires vulnerability aids the clinician in leading the patient towards long-term care goals that benefit both the patient and the child. In his work Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality, Thomas Reynolds states: “Love grounded in human vulnerability, I suggest, can be a grassroots moral criterion for social responsibility. Through sharing our weakness with each other, we become whole persons, and our capacities for giving and receiving welcome are empowered.”[20] By helping the mother bring that child to the world regardless of disability, the clinician honors a social commitment to embracing and protecting a human vulnerability that all experience. They are fulfilling their human duty and honor the finiteness that they, too, will one day face as they age. Also, they are giving strength and hope to a fearful and anxious parent about the future, supporting them as another vulnerable human being. Finally, the clinician would be able to succeed in the guidance of the patient because the loving act of coming alongside them would help them both move forward. As shared, a situationist would focus on the individual’s love while the virtuous person grounded in charity engages the communal effect and impact of their decisions on the patient, child, and even themselves. The doctrine of love compels the clinician to guide the patients toward loving their child through life, offers supporting strategies for how the parent and child can be cared for once birth occurs, and develops as a better clinician in the process.
In summation, love is a challenging concept with various definitions in modern society. Culture screams individual pursuit of happiness, challenging each person to disregard any infringement by others on their journey toward love. This is dangerous and leads many to make damaging decisions that affect themselves and society. Everyone cannot be happy on their own terms. It is a logical fallacy, as one’s own definition of love negates another’s view. Truthfully, humans need one another to find love. In his work The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis states: “In reality we all need at times, some of us at most times, that Charity from others which, being Love Himself in them, loves the unlovable.”[21] When it comes to bioethics issues, love needs to be applied generously and responsibly so that advances in technology and patient care help rather than harm. Through a proper view of the theological doctrine of love, bioethicists will discover the necessity to approach others in love with the virtue of benevolence as the guiding moral principle rather than relativism. Like instructions for a piece of furniture from Ikea, detailed guidance is needed for loving decisions to succeed. Absolute truth is required to protect proper decisions, particularly when it comes to love. The virtue of charity found in benevolence does that. Relativism enables improper love that harms. When humans work toward the common good and help one another, society thrives. By addressing what comes from our hearts first before making decisions rather than judging the ethical validity of a decision (Matt 15:18–20), human beings truly experience what it means to be human. We love, care, and decide well for one another.
[1] O. Carter Snead, What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics (Harvard University Press, 2020), 2.
[2] Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd Ed. (Zondervan, 2009), 15.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning (Crossway, 2018), 42.
[4] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 107–108.
[5] Stanley J. Grenz and Jay T. Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (InterVarsity Press, 2003), 102.
[6] Joseph Fletcher and James F. Childress, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 26.
[7] Fletcher and Childress, Situation Ethics, 26.
[8] Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma, The Christian Virtues in Medical Practice (Georgetown University Press, 1996), 29.
[9] Pellegrino and Thomasma, The Christian Virtues in Medical Practice, 29.
[10] Magnuson, Invitation to Christian Ethics, 52.
[11] “Haddaway - What Is Love [Official 4K],” CoconutMusicGermany, June 18, 2014, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXWRTEbj1I.
[12] D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway Books, 2000), 44–45.
[13] Benjamin I. Simpson, “Love,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Lexham Press, 2016).
[14] James K. A. Smith, You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit (Brazos Press, 2016), 22.
[15] Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, 84.
[16] “Prenatal Testing: Is It Right for You?” Mayo Clinic, August 25, 2020. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-testing/art-20045177.
[17] David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions (Crossway, 2009), 216–17.
[18] Allen Verhey, The Christian Art of Dying: Learning from Jesus (Eerdmans, 2011), 146.
[19] Amos Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity (Baylor University Press, 2020), 64.
[20] Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality (Brazos Press, 2008), 131.
[21] C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (HarperOne, 2017), 168.
Robert Drew, "The Doctrine of Love and Bioethics," Dignitas (2024): Online First, www.cbhd.org/dignitas-articles/the-doctrine-of-love-and-bioethics.