Pro Vita Christians
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
I am pro-life, all the way down. That causes confusion, though, because of the connotations that the term "pro-life" has in debates around abortion. "Pro-life" opponents of abortion are contrasted with "pro-choice" advocates of legalized abortion. And of course, pro-lifers are seen as generally conservative and pro-choicers as generally liberal.
Then there is the distinction between anti-death penalty advocates and pro-death penalty advocates. The former are stereotyped as liberal and the latter as conservative.
Then there are people like me, who see God's valuation of all human life as sacred and who are pro-life (in the abortion sense) and anti-death penalty. I recently heard an anti-death penalty comment that it is important to realize that life does not begin at conception and end at childbirth. And that's true. It begins at conception and ends at natural death, whenever that comes. I believe in protecting and upholding life at every stage along the way (and as a correlate to that, I believe in Christ's power of redemption no matter what a person has done).
So what label describes people like me? (Confused, maybe? I hope not!) I think there are actually a lot of us out there, Gen X'ers especially, who want to consider their views from a Christian perspective first (rather than from a polticial perspective that then gets imported into a supposedly Christian context). And I think the number of these people is growing.
I propose a new term: Pro Vita Christians. It is a way of saying "for life" or "in favor of life" but without the political baggage of the term "pro-life." It is a way of affirming God's love and care for all of his creatures - from the unborn baby in the womb to the convicted killer on death row.
This is a confessional stance, to be sure. And it is sure to be unpopular with both conventional liberals and conventional conservatives. But isn't it time Christians started thinking about their stances based on theology rather than secular political ideology?
I'm a Pro Vita Christian. All the way down. Who's with me?
Then there is the distinction between anti-death penalty advocates and pro-death penalty advocates. The former are stereotyped as liberal and the latter as conservative.
Then there are people like me, who see God's valuation of all human life as sacred and who are pro-life (in the abortion sense) and anti-death penalty. I recently heard an anti-death penalty comment that it is important to realize that life does not begin at conception and end at childbirth. And that's true. It begins at conception and ends at natural death, whenever that comes. I believe in protecting and upholding life at every stage along the way (and as a correlate to that, I believe in Christ's power of redemption no matter what a person has done).
So what label describes people like me? (Confused, maybe? I hope not!) I think there are actually a lot of us out there, Gen X'ers especially, who want to consider their views from a Christian perspective first (rather than from a polticial perspective that then gets imported into a supposedly Christian context). And I think the number of these people is growing.
I propose a new term: Pro Vita Christians. It is a way of saying "for life" or "in favor of life" but without the political baggage of the term "pro-life." It is a way of affirming God's love and care for all of his creatures - from the unborn baby in the womb to the convicted killer on death row.
This is a confessional stance, to be sure. And it is sure to be unpopular with both conventional liberals and conventional conservatives. But isn't it time Christians started thinking about their stances based on theology rather than secular political ideology?
I'm a Pro Vita Christian. All the way down. Who's with me?
Labels: Abortion, Death Penalty, Pro-Vita
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 11:36 AM
15 Comments:
The people over at Consistent Life are with you (and me), and you can add the issue of war, while you're at it.
I would agree that pro vita is much more consistant. Also would add fighting against poverty, hunger, and disease.
yup, yup.
Amen! Very interesting because I just had a conversation with one of our youth about this very thing, unfortunately they didn't seem to get it.
I am pretty sure all of Roman Catholicism is (officially) with you.
I hope that UM Christians (and bishops and other leading spokepersons for our church) will begin to speak more seriously (or if they do it much now, I just haven't heard and should look more) about our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life, in continuity with the Christian Church through the ages. I think we do pretty good on the death penalty, but it seems all to rare that there is much talk about standing up for the unborn "least of these" among UM Christians. That is my sense of things, maybe I am missing out on a conversation (or, better still, a prophetic declaration) that is going on.
really great post. i especially like the new designation - anything that distinguishes a theological position from a solely political one.
i'm pretty sure i'm slowly sliding toward being a roman catholic who just really likes the wesleys. i guess i'll at least be in closer communion with the one true church. but lately i've been thinking a lot about the catholic church's position on birth control and whether preventing life is really acceptable for followers of Christ. ultimately shouldn't we trust God to be in full control of all aspects of life - and don't we deny that with birth control? hard stuff.
Andrew,
What about war?
I'm in general agreement with you.
Thanks to everyone who has responded on this post so far. Lots of great comments.
I am write there with what you all have written in terms of war, poverty, disease, etc. I didn't include those in the original blog post only becase I was trying to cast "Pro Vita Christians" as an alternative to the specific liberal/conservative split on the issues of abortion and the capital punishment. That is, liberals are "pro life" on the issue of capital punishment and conservatives are "pro life" on the issue of abortion, but there isn't a clearly marked out position that is "pro life" on both (at least not in the debates in popular culture).
Jonathan, I especially appreciate you pointing to the Consistent Life website. Good stuff.
I'm not sure I see Pro Vita as a great solution, because capital punishment and abortion are not debates just about life and death, but about the actions of affected individuals and the actions of the state.
The abortion debate is about an individual situation - a mother and her pregnancy - and whether the mother has the right to determine the fate of her pregnancy, and whether that right trumps the rights of the unborn. People disagree about when life begins, when rights begin, and when agency begins, but the state has nothing to do with it.
With capital punishment and war, the debate is whether the state should enforce a punishment of death or cause death on behalf of the people.
Thank you for your comments, Kuz. I'm afraid your comment in regards to abortion that "the state has nothing to do with it" is a factual inaccuracy. Because the state regulates abortion, it has everything to do with it. And it is exactly because of differing opinions on the point at which a human life assumes rights and protections that the state will continue to be involved.
Just because abortion involves a surgical procedure performed upon an individual does not make it an "individual situation." Society has a stake in plenty of issues involving what individuals do to their bodies, and thus it rightly involves itself in the regulation of those issues. With abortion, that situation is particularly pertinent because so many do not see it as simply an issue involving _one_ individual.
Sigh. The state does not perform the abortion, is what I meant by the state having nothing to do with it. The state is not imposing death on anybody therefore advocating against abortion is not preventing death. Whereas, in execution, the state is literally killing somebody.
I'm curious, though, if abortion were to be illegal, who would be charged with a crime, and what would the sentence be?
Ah, I see what you were getting at. Yes, there is that sense in which it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. I'll also be the first to admit that anti-abortion laws are not the most _effective_ ways to prevent abortion. The most effective way is to promote a culture of life, where the valuation of human life is put above the valuation of such considerations as the radical autonomy of the individual.
I'm not sure if your concluding question was intended to be rhetorical or not; it seems to me that, from a purely legal standpoint, the penalty for any illegal act is dependent on the gravity of the offense. And that is defined by the appropriate legislative body (which is, ideally, representative of the collective will of the people, and thus, of the public moral consensus).
The point I was trying to press in my original reply was simply that considerations of the good are always consensually-defined by societies, and thus, judgment on the goodness of an act (and hence on its legality) can be properly made by the governing authority regardless of whether it is the governing authority that is acting as an agent in the situation in question.
Count me in as Pro Vita and Christian.
Having experienced the loss of life that so many won't admit to I'm always flabbergasted to find anyone who thinks abortion is none of their business but only that other [wo]man's. I can assure you that my offspring were as deeply connected to me as they were the mother's physical body. I can only surmise that the temporary gestational relationship all mother's are privy to grants them first right of possession and thus is axiomatic with 'possession is nine tenths of the law'. If that were so, I can clearly state that isn't a theologically informed view of the character of the unborn child, nor the relationship the child has with each parent and beyond. I reject the notion that my personal loss and connection must be imaginary to satisfy a trivial right of private disposition. Without having to call all circumstances of abortion murder we can acknowledge the clear loss of life, even if we lack the personal capacity to sense it.
As Christians we do not need to argue first from the law of a nation. Illegal or not, the gravity of life lost is what we must assess. If there is truly a conflict of life with life, then we must know that we all should be grieved by the outcome no matter what. But when life is lost for convenience, personal privacy, fear, or outright indifference then guilt and shame should plague our conscience. Claiming it was their choice is an empty comfort that drains one's soul.
Amen---I love your candor and honesty on this blog and in your published articles in the UMR!
Ego pro vita sum, amice.
Post a Comment
<< Home