Tag: pro-life

“Christians are not fundamentally concerned about living”

Whenever the idea of being “pro-life” or the concept of the “sanctity of life” are being bandied about, as they are now in the wake of Dobbs, I often think of this passage from Stanley Hauerwas’ Suffering Presence:

It is a mistake to assume that “sanctity of life” is a sufficient criterion for an appropriate concept of death. Appeals to the sanctity of life beg exactly the question at issue, namely, that you know what kind of life it is that should be treated as sacred. More troubling for me, however, is how the phrase “sanctity of life,” when separated from its theological context, became an ideological slogan for a narrow individualism antithetical to the Christian way of life. Put starkly, Christians are not fundamentally concerned about living. Rather, their concern is to die for the right thing. Appeals to the sanctity of life as an ideology make it appear that Christians are committed to the proposition that there is nothing in life worth dying for.

I come back to this passage a lot in my head: the words “Christians are not fundamentally concerned about living” have really stuck with me since I first read them. They are challenging words, especially for those who are called to lead churches today. I don’t think a lot of Christians today want to hear that Christianity isn’t about how to find some little piece of comfort in a difficult world, but is instead about how to prepare yourself to die for something you believe in. I don’t envy pastors who have to try to thread this needle. But I think Hauerwas is right; after all, we follow a Savior who died, and we are called in Scripture to be willing to do the same. The Christian life is one that is different from the culture around it, not in a contrarian sort of way, but because we understand life to mean something more than just existing.

The problem with pro-life rhetoric is that it doesn’t seem to have a firm foundation of what it is we are preserving life for. It mirrors the common American conversation about liberty in this way; freedom is always from something, and very rarely for anything. Life appears to be the same for American Christians. We are standing for life, not because we then want to declare that that life needs to serve the needs of others, but because we want to be able to do with life whatever we please. Its just another way that American Christianity has become wrapped up in the worst kind of Enlightenment liberalism, the kind that takes it deepest cues from capitalism and the market, a kind amoral permissiveness that says if you can afford to do it, then it is good to do. Ethics are a function of financial and social capital. Life isn’t about the good, in a philosophical sense; its about gratifying an immediate desire. In this understanding, life perversely comes to mean not dying, because I have more things that I want to do, to buy, to consume. Life is just the avoidance of death long enough to take another hit of whichever drug consumes us.

It becomes hard then to take pro-life arguments seriously, because they seem to have such a casual disregard for life and its purpose beyond just being born and thus existing. This is why I have such a problem with the pro-life movement, despite my own moral qualms about abortion. If we are going to work so damn hard to force women to carry to term any and all pregnancies no matter the cost, shouldn’t we have some idea of what kind of life we want people to lead? It isn’t good enough to say “live and let live.” Christians can’t be laissez faire about these kinds of things; we are too committed to following a risen Lord who lived life in a very specific way, and even more importantly, was willing to give up his life for the sake of his friends and his God.

Because, in the end, that is the “something” for which life exists: to love and to serve your Lord God and your neighbor. Those words mean something, something more than just “get yours while you can.” Death is not to be feared, and life is not to be revered, because neither are absolutes; only God is, and as Scripture tells us, God is love. Hauerwas goes on in the same vein:

Therefore life for Christians is not sacred in the strict sense. Christians view life as a gift, but a gift for which they must care. Thus the claim that life is sacred is not really so much a statement about ourselves as it is an indication of the kind of respect we owe our neighbor. Our life and the lives of our neighbors are to be protected, since they are not ours to dispose of. For our dying as much as our living should be determined by our conviction that we are not our own.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life: Against the Texas Abortion Law

I believe two things about the abortion debate. One, I think the act of abortion is a terrible one, I pray a world where there are no abortions, and I can’t imagine ever having to decide to have one (which I never will, as I am a man.) Two, I am ardently in favor of allowing women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies, and I think the Texas abortion law passed a few weeks ago is a terrible law that attacks women and is unconstitutional and immoral. In short, you could say I am both pro-life (in that I believe all life has worth and should be protected) and pro-choice. To assert that there is a hard dichotomy between the two is to acquiesce to a politicized debate I refuse to entertain.

The issue of abortion has long been difficult for me. On one hand, I want to stand with women, and I believe it is important that they be able to make the best choices for their lives and their bodies. One the other, I understand the arguments made by serious Christian thinkers around the importance of family, child-bearing, and the arrogance of a humanity that believes it has any semblance of control over just about anything. I have mostly stayed quiet on the issue, trying to walk a line between solidarity with women and a belief that the act of abortion is one of the most difficult situations human beings face. In the end, it has often come down to the fact that I am a man, and I do not ever have to face down the decision personally.

But, as the debate has heated up again recently, and with the passage of the Texas law, I have once again come to understand that my position of leaving it to women – even in the face of my moral misgivings – doesn’t put me in the middle of the abortion debate. In fact, it puts be squarely in the the pro-choice camp. Because that is what it means to be pro-choice: not that you think abortion is an unalloyed good. Not that you want abortions happening all the time. Not that you think abortion should be on the table as a form of birth control. No, pro-choice means that you think this issue is hard, that it contains a lot of gray, that you don’t know what the best choice is for every women in every situation, and so, you would rather leave that choice up to women and their medical care professionals. Being pro-choice means you think government should stay out of the exam room and not make decisions for people.

And, now, being pro-choice means you don’t think it is ok for a state to outsource legal enforcement to vigilantes and bounty hunters. It means that you don’t think conservatives should be able to circumvent constitutional precedence and basic law enforcement by writing a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation with the sole aim of getting judges on the Supreme Court to let it stand not on its merits, but because they have already decided what outcome they want and thus are willing to rubber stamp just about anything that comes their way.

No matter where you stand on abortion, we should all be on the same page about Texas: the law they have passed – the regime of coercion, fear and enforcement they have directed at women who are already undergoing one of the most difficult times in their entire lives – is unconscionable and shouldn’t be allowed to stand, on both legal and moral grounds. The effective outlaw of Roe in Texas is a blow to the dignity and autonomy of women in that state. Into law has been written the idea that the lives, choices, beliefs and dreams of women don’t count as much as the theoretical future life of a fetus. The desires of those who are anti-abortion have been elevated as the most important in Texas, and the desires of the women who are actually affected by the law have been made last. In addition, Texas has created a legal wild west, opening up a space for vigilante justice, where anyone can be hauled into court at any time if someone even suspects that might want to “assist” abortion by doing something like passing on the phone number of a women’s health clinic or donating money to NARAL. Additionally, that person is now on the hook for forking over $10,000 plus legal fees to their accusers. And if they try to challenge it in court? The state can wash its hands, because enforcement has been outsourced to citizens, a legal scheme as unconstitutional as it is horrifying. This isn’t justice. This isn’t pro-life. This isn’t the land of the free. It’s religious belief made law, a mockery of the rule of law.

The decision to carry a pregnancy to term should not involve the state. Choices made around a difficult or traumatic pregnancy don’t need a federal official to help officiate. For all of the small government blathering of many of the same conservatives who support this law, it’s awfully hard to see this as anything but the imposition of government into the relationship between a women and her doctor. And it has been done in a way that, in another context, would have these conservatives howling with anger and outrage. Can you imagine, for instance, if California wrote a law stating that all personal firearms are illegal, and that instead of the state sending agents to seize guns, they instead deputized every citizen in the state to snitch on any gun owners, and then those same gun owners had to pay those snitches $10k plus legal fees? Fox News would implode. Conservatives would overturn the entire state government in Sacramento. And I agree: that would be a legal travesty! You can’t overturn constitutional rights and precedence by legal trickery. But, this showcases the civic bankruptcy of much of the conservative political movement in America: tactics and values don’t matter as much as the ends achieved. But any means, this law says, conservatives values be damned. It’s utilitarian thinking at its apogee, and it undermines the rule of law that American democracy is founded upon.

And here is the thing: abortion will still happen. Abortion did not start with the advent of Roe, and it will not end with it being struck down. Instead, abortion will go from being the safe confines of a sterile doctor’s office, back to where it once existed, in basements and alleyways and in the dark. Women and babies will die. Being pro-life can’t just mean blind opposition to abortion at all costs. Want to reduce abortions? Support birth control access, sex education in schools, women and children’s health, the elimination of poverty, more monetary support for working families. If you oppose abortion, but also oppose policies that address these things (like universal basic income, universal day care, effective and targeted welfare programs, funding for health care and education) then you aren’t being very pro-life. Study after study shows: reducing abortions comes through these means. If the anti-abortion crowd sunk as much energy and passion and anger into these causes as they did legally attacking women, their doctors and their advocates, then abortion rates would plummet.

But, the priorities of the movement to “protect babies” have never been clearer, thanks to Texas. Its not about better policy and safer birth. Honestly, it probably never was.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. That’s what it means to support women and want more happy, healthy babies and families in America. We must support the right of women to make their own decisions. We must realize that discomfort with and grief at abortion doesn’t require certainty, but instead opens a place of uncertainty and difficulty, and thus, a one-size-fits-all policy response like Texas – or like the repeal of Roe – cannot be the answer. We must give women the space to make the best decision they can, stand with them in grief or joy and above all love when they make decisions, and stop making their lives harder and scarier in the meantime. That is the most compassionate and most Christian thing we can do.

Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden

A group of pro-life evangelicals has issued a statement this week, and is soliciting signatures to add to it, titled “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden.” Headed up by evangelical leaders Richard Mouw, John Perkins, and Ron Sider, and including among the signatories former Trump voters and members of the late Rev. Billy Graham’s family, the group has issued a strong, Biblically-based called for pro-life voters to think more holistically and critically about their voting habits and choices this November. Here is the statement in full:

As pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe that a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end.

Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues. As the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document (FOR THE HEALTH OF THE NATION) insists, “Faithful evangelical civic engagement and witness must champion a biblically balanced agenda.“  Therefore we oppose “one issue” political thinking because it lacks biblical balance.

Knowing that the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child, we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden: accessible health services for all citizens, affordable childcare, a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.

For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”

In an op-ed at the Christian Post introducing the group, Sider and Mouw explain the driving forces behind the group, and expand upon the ideas in the statement. In particular, they dig into the idea of a consistent pro-life ethic, and what it means for other areas of political engagement beyond abortion:

The statement points out that many problems that better politics could correct violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty, lack of health care, racism and climate change all kill persons created in the image of God. They are all pro-life issues.

Poverty and diseases we know how to prevent kill millions every year. The World Food Program estimates that by the end of 2020, 265 million people around the world could be pushed to the brink of starvation. PEPFAR (President George W. Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) has saved the lives of 17 million people around the world. But in repeated budget proposals, Donald Trump has proposed cutting this effective program. Other effective US funded foreign aid programs have saved the lives of millions.  But Donald Trump has also repeatedly tried to cut that help for starving people. Poverty is a pro-life issue.

Lack of health care kills people. Studies have shown that people without health insurance are less likely to visit a doctor, are more likely to have poor health, and die younger than persons with health insurance. The Affordable Care Act provided health insurance to an additional 20 million Americans – and prohibited insurance companies from refusing to cover persons with pre-existing conditions. Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to abolish the Affordable Care Act and has not offered any genuine  alternative. Health care for all is a pro-life issue.

Racism kills. We know that racism killed African-Americans in slavery and then later in thousands of lynchings. But even today, African-Americans are several times more likely than white Americans to be killed by the police. And the death rate for African-Americans because of COVID-19 is 3.6 times that of white Americans. Tragically Donald Trump refuses to condemn racist groups and continues to stoke racism rather than uniting the country to struggle against racism.  Racism is a pro-life issue – and it is on the ballot in 2020 in an unusually significant way.

Climate change already kills untold thousands and will soon kill tens of millions unless we change. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that unless we quickly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases causing global warming that we send into the atmosphere, many millions will die. The poor will suffer the most. But Donald Trump denies the near scientific consensus on climate change and has made numerous policy decisions that make things much worse. Climate change is a pro-life issue.

I am not an pro-life evangelical, and so I cannot affix my signature to this statement. That said, as a fellow Christian who thinks hard about the consequences of my faith on my political engagement, I heartily endorse everything these leaders have written. The issue of abortion is one that vexes me, as I believe the single-minded focus so many Christians have on it when it comes to politics ends up damaging the Gospel witness by reducing it and stripping away everything that makes the message of Christ so unique and powerful in the world. When we let the Gospel become held hostage to one issue – no matter the issue – then the Gospel becomes secondary to that issue.

Christian political engagement requires difficult decisions, a robust process of discernment, and a holistic view of the message of Christ and the historic example of the Church and its members in their engagement with the world. The evangelicals who have issued this statement have embodied that tradition well, using their faith to inform their whole selves, and applying that ethic consistently to the issues we face as a nation.

Neither political candidate is a “Christian” candidate. This means, in making a choice, voters must consider all the facets of their vote, and the consequences of that vote for a whole host of issues and people. It cannot simply be a rubber stamp for specific interest groups, political parties, or individual personalities. Kudos to this self-described group of pro-life evangelicals for engaging this debate seriously and thoughtfully. May we all do so.