Christians are facing a brave new world with the advent of cheap genetic editing via CRISPR technology (among other advances). The fact that there are now people alive who've been genetically edited means the realities we once relegated to science fiction have entered the world we inhabit. It's time to start thinking seriously about these issues because I don't think anyone has the answers yet.Our ancestors never faced the problems and choices we're now facing because a baby’s arrival was once an almost unavoidable act of God. Reproductive ethics had to be invented in the modern era of the last two centuries as new reproductive technology became available.We'll never come to a clear decision about the ethical status of gene editing until we first ask a series of other questions in order to understand the issues at stake.Most people say "no" to the first question but "yes" to the second, but if your child has a low to normal range IQ in a world in which every other kid's IQ is 150 doesn't that make your own childmentally handicapped?Gene editing, vaccinations, and altering protein intake are all ways to "edit" a child's body to give it life advantages. Is gene editing different than our current practices in any categorical way?Infants generally don’t decide anything that happens to them (including being born).In both situations we’re seizing control of the reproductive process instead of "letting nature take its course." The Catholic church has long taught that birth control is a form of "playing God" that divorces the marriage bed from its natural reproductive result. In both situations, humans edit the family unit and decide when and who enters the world.The average American woman had seven children in 1800. Why? Among the biggest reasons was that birth control wasn't often used, and it wasn't very reliable when it was used. Marriage almost inevitably resulted in children simply because sex almost inevitably resulted in children. Nowadays, children have become lifestyle choices. We acquire them, plan them, decide if we have enough money to afford them. Would the way we now treat children change much if we also decided to edit their DNA?It seems pretty inevitable that when gene editing becomes common a huge chasm will open up between the edited and the unedited. How can unedited children competeagainst a group of children who are smarter, stronger, healthier, and better looking than they are (and probably considerably so)? At the same time, how is this categorially different from the huge advantages wealthy children are currently born with?If you refuse to vaccinate your child and they die of a preventable illness then you share blame for your child's death. Soon, if you refuse to edit your child and they die of a preventable genetic illness, or simply become social outcasts, then you'll have to share the blame for that too. You may not be interested in genetically editing your child (in order to dodge its moral implications), but genetic editing is deeply interested in you and your child.Consider the golden rule : if you were a disadvantaged unedited child wouldn't you wish your parents had edited you? Of course you would, unless you had a clear religious mandate not to wish that, but where is that clear religious mandate in the Bible? If all Christians collectively decided not to edit their children then we could create a counter culture, but most Christian parents will eventually choose to edit as social norms change because they don't recognize any clear prohibition against it.This question is for scientists and medical professionals, but I imagine it's only a matter of time until gene editing is at least as safe as other routine medical procedures.Some Christian ethicists have compared the myth of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods to Adam and Eve’s fall from Eden by eating from the Tree of the knowledge of good & evil. Man is a fallen creature who has overstepped his bounds. Should we trust man to seize more power from nature by using technology?However, some suggest that man’s identity as God's image on earth (rulers and creators) means that we should manipulate nature in all possible ways so as to become more like God. “Playing God” is what God created us to do.Technology is about power, and if you don’t edit genes, and pursue other technological advances , someone else will and then they'll conquer/destroy you. It’s easy to imagine America refusing to edit genes while China decides to start editing which then results in China creating super soldiers and an entire class of 200 IQ thinkers who overrun America with their superiority. A reverse version of this already happened in Qing China. Westerners pursued technology and then conquered the world while the Chinese were still using pikes because they wanted to maintain stability.We have to start asking ourselves whether humanity has lost control of technology. If we had asked in 1930 whether we should pursue atomic and nuclear weapons almost everyone would have said "no." The problem is that if we hadn't pursued them the Germans or Russians would have invented them first and taken over the world.On an individual level, you can choose not to edit your child's DNA, but some other parent will do it and their kid will take your kid's job or spouse. How should this competitive aspect change our ethical considerations?In my opinion, there's no theological grounds upon which to oppose gene editing within the common currents of our contemporary Christian worldview. We already genetically engineer crops and animals, so where can we draw the line with humans? Certain strains of “alternative” Christianity, like the Amish , do have consistent reasons to oppose it. However, we must accept it unless we’re willing to rethink everything.I was leading a discussion on gene editing in my teen Bible class when a student asked whether it was permissible for a Christian to change the gender of an embryo. He related this to the transgender movement. Honestly, I was baffled by his question. "We're not in Kansas anymore."Gattaca