It was cold in the Thai restaurant. I sat perched on this uncomfortable wooden stool at the bar, the fabric cushion covered with a thick layer of plastic. My thighs were starting to stick.
The guy behind the counter walks up and asks what’d I’d like. “Oh, nothing, thanks. Just waiting for my takeout order.” I smile and go back to the small iPhone screen in my hands.
A conversation had broken out about the A-word over Twitter. You know. Abortion.
I tweeted my contribution to my friend Joy, after the conversation had gone on for a little while:
My tweet was pointed politically at a man who claims he is “consistently pro-life,” yet is pro-death penalty. Not only does he support legislation that allows a person to be sentenced to death, Texas, the state which he governs, has carried out 234 executions during his time as governor.
What part of that speaks LIFE?
I am a lover of words and I take them seriously.
Life, to me, means LIFE.
All of it.
From conception to natural death.
Since when did a word so simple, yet wide-eyed as LIFE become so finite, polarized, politicized?
Or what about the word CHOICE?
Choice to what?
Does it only mean one thing?
Says who? Not me.
I’m on a mission to use, what my friend Seth calls, “good word economy.” I want each word to speak their true value to the world as they leave my lips and fingertips.
Our words matter.
They land heavy. They lift up and they bury souls. They speak truth and Truth and lies. They’re big and small and ugly-beautiful and we sling words that pack punches of hurt or conviction.
Good word economy is something we should not take lightly. Whether it’s politics or parenting. Economics or the Eucharist. Everything we say is chock full to the seams with meaning and our words are not islands.
I don’t think we are beyond our rights to ask our politicians and representatives to use good word economy. To be mindful of the things they speak. To fully understand the meaning of every word they speak on behalf of their people.
The words we share, speak, type – they are intertwined with the stories of others.
As believers, they are intricately linked with the One Story that Ever Mattered. The Greatest Story Ever Told.
The Gospel.
We open our mouths and the world hears them through the label of “Christian.” We open our mouths and we speak them through the filter of Christ.
If I open my mouth, does it speak to the nature of the good, sovereign God?
I pray, yes. For all of us.
Lord, hear our prayer.
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
Lord hear our prayer.
Amen.
Incredible. Solid. Economical. Weighty. Consistent.
Coming from you, friend, that means much. Thank you (and thanks for the word economy inspiration!)
I deeply respect your conviction on this and totally understand where you are coming from. Still, I cannot help but think that when it comes to people who rape, mutilate, and murder little children (like some who have been in the news recently) -if it they can be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt- they should receive the death penalty. Not torture, mind you, but swift execution. And like the thief on the cross next to Jesus, I would pray that they would spend eternity with Him because they turned to Him before the end. But I just do not believe that we should run the risk of people like this being able to commit the same sort of crime again if they ever get out of prison. What if their next victim was your, or my, child?
Hey Renee, thanks for responding. I understand your views on the death penalty, and I’m not here to argue that point (though, yes, I do feel differently). My argument here in this piece is specifically related to the usage of the term “pro-life.” If I was to call myself pro-life, which I do, I would expect that term to be all-encompassing… Because life is life… the life of the unborn, the life of the elderly, the life of the criminal, the life of the Afghan. If I was anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty, that wouldn’t be consistently “pro-life,” so it would be a stretch & a bit if a farce to call myself such.
I simply believe we need to be mindful of the full meanings of the words we use in our everyday, our theology, and our politics.
Thanks for being here, Renee! I sure appreciate you reading.
You make an excellent point. Thank you for writing!
Amen! Thank you.
Thank YOU, Georgi.
thoughtful, well written, articulate. thank you for being willing to talk about big issues in a non-condemning manner (without losing the point of what you are saying). love LOVE deeper story.
Thank you, Sarah. So glad you’re here.
Yes. I am with you.
I’m glad for that, my friend.
Preach it.
Words are slung fast and far, with less thought than ever before in our history. May we learn stewardship.
Yes, so little thought to what we say and type and write. Stewardship – a good word.
You have me thinking. Thank you.
Thanks, Heatherly, for being here and reading along.
Perfect and poignant. A consistent ethic of human life is an absolutely imperative part of a Christ-followers world view. Posts like this are why I love A Deeper Story.
Thank you, Luke, for your kind words. And I agree – it’s absolutely imperative.
This is something I have thought about quite a bit over the last few years. Both the “just war” aspect and the death penalty have been a bit too close for comfort in my life. I was a member of the Army, and as such, saw such depravity (from both sides) in my time overseas, that I simply cannot help but laugh when anyone espouses notions of “just war.” Additionally, my cousin was working in a gas station when two men came in, robbed him of the $20 that was in the drawer, and then shot him in the face with a shotgun anyway. They were both tried and convicted of capital murder, and both were granted a reprieve under Illinois’ death penalty moratorium. So unfortunately, I do not have the pleasure of talking about these concepts as abstractions.
I think the crux of the issue of a consistent ethic of human life, at least with regards to the death penalty, lies in our views of justice. Our modern theories of justice are based on a misguided medieval notion of the stratification of sins, with each strata requiring a proportionate response, with the most grievous offenses requiring the harshest punishments, but Romans 3:23 tells a different story. If we were to follow Paul’s theory of justice, we’d all be dead. Thankfully, Jesus offers an alternative theory of justice, or should I say a theory of grace, that invalidates the OT “eye for an eye” theory of justice and places it solely in the hands of God, which in my opinion is quite a relief.
The parables of the lost coin, lost sheep and lost son serve to illustrate the limits of (or lack thereof) Jesus’ theory of grace, and the stories like that of the woman caught in adultery and of Zaccheus gives us practical examples of how that ethic is expressed in our daily lives, and it seems to me that such an ethic is far more pro-life than the current commonly accepted definition.
I wish I could “like” this comment a thousand times.
Ditto.
Wow, Luke – talk about perspective. Thank you for every word of it – great wisdom.
I think the issue here is deeper, much more fundamental than what we believe about political issues. I addressed it on my own blog if you care to read it (http://ow.ly/6kjgy), but I think the crux of the issue is, are we allowing our culture to dictate the precise way in which we are “allowed” to express our faith, instead of the practice of our faith being a driving force in our culture? Regardless of the issue, the same question applies. Are the foundational values of love, grace, mercy and compassion that are embodied in the person of Christ informing our attitudes, or are we driven by some misguided sense of fatalistic pragmatism that says “it has to be this way”?
I think this is interesting and fascinating.
Here’s my stance. I am post-abortion and pro-life.
Meaning I value life.
At 14 years old I walked down a dark hallway and “Life” was snatched from my little bitty body. At 14 I did not even know I had a choice. I was following the people who were in charge of me. and I never put a value on that life. At 24 I sat in a crisis pregnancy center (believing the only possible choice I had was to terminate the life that was inside of me.) and a lady shared with me the message of “Life” The gospel. On a cold February day, in my car, in the parking lot of that crisis pregnancy center, I said “Yes” to life. To the life I was carrying and to the life Jesus offered me. In the middle of my crisis, my world that was falling apart, my loss of all hope, my rock bottom, the end of myself, my shame on display for all to see, I began to value life. For me to say “YES” to life, there had to be death of everything else in me.
I kind of get how a politician can be pro-life yet understand the place for death and war.
I am pro-life… but I am not anti-death or anti-war. I just understand there place. There must be death in order to have life. Death is part of life. You can’t have life without it. It goes with it. People have always been put to death for crimes. We may not like it, but it runs through God’s story. It is part of it. And war. It is not that war is good or bad, It’s war. War began in Eden and carries through to revelations. There is war in heaven and on earth. War was not a few parts of God’s story, it is the entire backdrop. Jesus said, there will be war and rumors of war. We will never be without war until his story is complete. War is a part of “Life” weather we are for it or not. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. We don’t have to like it, but we are engaged in it either way. To be anti-war and anti-death is to not understand there place.
I am Pro-Life, because I value life! I also know that death and war are part of it.
Thank you for this place here. I read often, this is my first comment. I have gained so much insight and encouragement from a deeper story. Story fascinates me…
Hey Kristin,
First of all, thanks for being brave and sharing your story about abortion. Please know that your experience and your story is deeply valued here and we’re honored that you’d share that piece of your life with us.
My only question is this: You say “There must be death in order to have life. Death is a part of life.” Was it always meant to be that way? Death at the hand of whom? I struggle with the statement you make, that War is the entire backdrop of God’s story. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. I believe that Love & Redemption is the backdrop of God’s story, which makes me believe that God grieves death. He grieves war. I think to be anti-war and anti-death penalty (or rather, pro-life, in its entirety), is much more closely linked to the heart of God. And fighting for peace and life is to definitely understand their place… that there should be no place for those things within the Kingdom of God because of what Christ did on the cross.
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your dialogue!
Nish, I think that I understand the heart behind your words, but if you are going to argue the use of a popular phrase you have to recognize where it came from. Historically the term “pro-life” was created by opponents of abortion to clearly define the difference between themselves and those who were “pro-choice”. I think that, understood in context, the use of “pro-life” in regards to those who are opposed to abortion was then- and remains now- appropriate regardless of their views on other human rights issues. I remain pro-life. To me, this means I defend the right to life that every unborn, newly born, full grown, elderly or aging innocent should have. God values the life of the innocent also, but defers punishment of murderers to those in authority. I am curious as to what you think would be a more appropriate descriptive for a person who values the life of an innocent, but still supports the death penalty?
Thanks, Sarah. I am aware of the historical value placed on the pro-life ethic and where it began. But I still believe that relegating such a wide-reaching word as “LIFE” to a label that is incredibly finite is inappropriate. When you say that you are pro-life, which encompasses all but the murderer, does that mean that you would not defend their right to live and maybe, just maybe, experience redemption? I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. If so, my only question in rebuttal is this: Is anyone beyond God’s grace? As believers of God’s story of redemption of the world through Christ, is it not our responsibility to make sure that all (and I do mean all) people are given that chance?
For what its worth, I agree that criminals (whether murderers or not) should be given proper punishment by those in authority. But I do believe that the death penalty laughs in the face of what Christ did on the cross. I realize that’s a bold statement, but the institution of capital punishment is based upon the belief that yes, there are some that are even beyond God’s saving hand and redemption. I don’t believe that’s true.
In regards to an appropriate descriptive for someone who values the life of innocent, but still supports the death penalty, I’ll have to think about that. I’m not a huge fan of labels to begin with (if you couldn’t tell already), so this will be a stretch for me.
Anyone have any ideas?
I’m also not a fan of labels, but what is wrong with anti-abortion? I feel like I should know why the pro-life movement eschews that phrase, but I can’t remember …
I feel like that’s appropriate as well. I was going to say “pro-innocent-life” because that runs directly in line with what Sarah was saying, but a commenter on Twitter said “None of us are innocent.” And then I sad “Touche” and ate those words.
I would assume that anti-abortion is frowned upon because it comes at it from a negative side, when we all certainly want to be seen from a positive light. But the fact is, many who claim to be pro-life are, in fact, simply anti-abortion.
many people who are “pro-choice” are still “anti-abortion,” in that they don’t think it a good choice without serious consequences all around. bill clinton said his hope was that abortion would be safe, legal–and rare.
no one wants to be define by what they’re against, and pro-lifers ARE for life. i’m all for a consistent, “seamless garment” ethic of life and having better conversations (and action!) that bridges the left/right divide, but at the end of the day, even if we truly seek to champion life, we’re still not gonna all be on the same page about foreign and domestic policy.
This is good.. As I was getting ready, I was praying for God to teach me. I want a deeper understanding of this topic. I want to see a clearer picture. For nine years of my walk with Jesus, I’ve had to learn the concept of warfare. I’ve had to understand the enemy and my place in the battle. I’ve had to put my hope in victory because I’ve known to well the stronghold of defeat. I have seen firsthand war in my home, on my marriage, on my children. for my heart. and I’ve been called to join the army. fight for it. I realize what God’s heart is, but I also believe that when sin entered the world war became a backdrop of it. Jesus’ birth was an invasion on enemy territory. I know war and death grieve God. I know his heart is love and redemption ultimately. But I don’t think I can read His story and not see over and over again the theme of war. He is a warrior, He rose up warriors. Our final victory will result from a great war. I know His heart is love, but I guess it’s important to me to know He is going to fight for me too.
Your comment brings to mind Ephesians 6:12…we are warriors, yes, but against whom? Not other humans.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
I’ve always fallen in line with Kristin’s thinking, but now that you mention it Arianne, it is against darkness. Does this eliminate humans? Let me use a slightly ridiculous musing of mine: Harry Potter (bear with me).
I was watching the final installment, the final battle and I was moved to tears. I had to laugh at myself because it is, after all, Harry Potter. But maybe there’s something inside of all of us that know about that last battle, the real one. It seems to be a reoccurring theme in literature (LOTR, Narnia, etc). I think we all want the darkness to be destroyed, and we all like the idea of a big something of light destroying it. Maybe that’s not Pro-Life. I don’t know…but aren’t we all spirit? I know we are all soul, and to be honest I get confused about the difference. I guess my point is, I like the idea of Jesus the Warrior. I feel safer. Is it graceful? Not so much I guess. But, I’m finding it hard to put Group Hug Jesus in a world where there is so much darkness. I need someone to stop the madness.
This has been something I’ve been wrestling with: I am not all grace. Is everything grace forever? Why do I feel such a strong desire for the bad guys to be destroyed? Is it healthy for me to use literature to form my theological ideas? Off to re-read Revelations! Mwuah!
also, why am I following Lord Voldemort on Twitter and finding him hilarious?
Seriously.
I totally understand your wrestling – I do the same. My own belief is that the context of the verse is referring to our “battle” being a supernatural one. And you know what? Jesus the Warrior is spot on because – it is Him in the end who is the one that comes back and wins it all. He who is the ultimate Judge. But Jesus the Warrior is not Human the Warrior, kwim? We are relieved of the burden of judgment, revenge, punishment (because how can we know any soul won’t turn to Jesus? I always think of Paul in this case, the ultimate sinner by his own words, a terrorist by profession). When we’re relieved of those things, including hate, love is really free to be wild and radical. It’s not that we no longer want evil to be punished or that we suddenly don’t care about people being harmed – it’s more that we’re free to just love people (enemies included – as Jesus says) and know that God will take care of it.
I personally try not to have a mind of the “here and now” because in the context of eternity, this time here is so incredibly finite. Grace is forever, but the key is that everyone still has the choice to choose Jesus or not. He will never, ever force Himself on anyone.
Your thoughts on soul/body/spirit are on the right path – another thing I wrestle with but in a good way.
It’s so fascinating to me. I think spirit + body = soul. Maybe it’s semantics? But I think I got that from C.S. Lewis (again with the lit influences!).
YES! I think I am just not at the place of maturity where I don’t want evil punished. I am realizing that I need Jesus to be the Warrior/Savior, and not me, in order to have peace, mental health, etc. I need Him to rule the world.
I am very here and now. It gets me into trouble.
I am also not so loving. But, the law is in place to show us we are sinners, so I hope one day, I’ll be able to extend as much grace as I’ve been given..at the least.
“The words we share, speak, type – they are intertwined with the stories of others.
As believers, they are intricately linked with the One Story that Ever Mattered. The Greatest Story Ever Told.
The Gospel.”
THIS.
This is it. When the dust settles from all of our other discussions and debates and disagreements or whatever else, THIS is what we must remember.
Words are power and I am so thankful for your challenge to all of us to use them mindfully.
I just love you.
Words have power. I couldn’t agree with you more.
But, aren’t we called to define our words? I am pro-life AND pro-justice. Which means that I am against the killing of innocents as much as I am for the punishment of evil. Those views can live in harmony, if we are willing to stop slinging around buzzwords and take a moment to define our positions. Although I don’t agree with you on the “Pro-Life” topic, I admire you for speaking out and having a thought-out opinion instead of a hastily cobbled together, insult-laden approach like so many who discuss this topic. Keep on being honest and thoughtful and we will only get better as a country.
You inspired me. Hopefully this isn’t intrusive, but I just wrote my own thoughts on the topic.
Thanks again for being honest and vulnerable!
http://www.cuteconservative.com/blog/2011/09/01/can-you-be-pro-life-and-pro-war-or-death-penalty/
Dani, I’m glad I could inspire. Thanks for taking the time to respond at length on the topic. We’ll have to agree to disagree!
To answer your question regarding the number of executions that have taken place during Rick Perry’s tenure as the governor of Texas, I found that number here: http://is.gd/eSbz6u and also here: http://is.gd/reytJl. Though, to be fair, if you use the second link, you have to count the list since the date he took office.
My biggest concern with Rick Perry is that he is very boldly wearing his faith on his sleeve as part of his political campaign (and has stated that his faith drives his convictions on social issues) and I simply don’t believe that the death penalty is in line with a Christ-centered, Gospel-oriented consistent pro-life ethic.
Hence the serious eyes.
Best to you this Thursday.
Hi Nish –
Thanks for responding. I can totally see your perspective… I just don’t think it’s realistic. Also, aren’t we robbing God of his redemptive power if we assume that because we settled on a just punishment for a crime, He cannot redeem the wrongdoer? It appears to me that God’s grace overcomes all bounds… even when we, as finite people have made a distasteful choice in an effort to act justly and in protection of the weak.
Just a thought….
I actually think we rob God of His redemptive power (although to be fair, “we” can never rob God of anything except our love, unless He allows it to be so) if we take another human’s life.
You said it exactly – it would be “us” settling on a “just” punishment – but how do we in our human wisdom know what is a just punishment? Who deserves to die if all sin is the same to God? I submit that taking a life is much more than distasteful to God, regardless if humans somewhere decided it was the proper punishment. And I thank God every day that my opinion of what is “realistic” is not what anyone (including myself) needs to live by, because He blesses so much higher and redeems from such depths, more than I can ever fathom.
Dani, thank you for your blog response to this post. I completely agree. Your point is logically made based on real world situations and perspective. Far too many people argue the semantics of an issue to avoid the real meat of the topic.
Thanks Jenny! You are very kind.
“If our words DO have power, which I strongly believe, than it doesn’t seem fair to assume that “life” covers everything when you stick a “pro” before it.”
I’m having a hard time following your argument here. Are you saying that somehow words lose meaning when combined? If words have meaning, then life means life, regardless of any attached prefix, and any attempt to parse out the meaning seems to me to be an attempt to subjugate the actual meaning of the words to our current social/political/cultural context.
Also, I find your view of war-as-necessity particularly fatalistic and America-centric. You claim that had we not gone to war in Iraq, “American lives would still be at risk from [Saddam Hussein's] agenda,” (a dubious assertion at best, but we’ll grant it for the sake of argument) but even if true, are American lives somehow more valuable than Iraqi lives. Or even more pointedly, are the lives of American civilians somehow more valuable than the lives of American soldiers?
In the case of Iraqi (and I’ll include Afghan here as well) lives, are the lives of Iraqi (and Afghan) children, whose little broken bodies I saw and held as the last flickers of life passed from their eyes, victims of the “collateral damage” mentality of our “just war” theories, somehow less valuable than the lives of our children here at home? Are their deaths necessary components of these necessary wars? What of the fathers and mothers of these children? What of the sons of slain fathers, the daughters of slain mothers, the grieving remnant? Is their pain the price we pay for our security?
In the case of US soldiers, are they disposable commodities in the face of our perceived insecurities? And I’m not just talking about the 5000+ who have already died in combat, but the countless others who’ve returned broken in body and in spirit, forever haunted by images of the exquisite agony both endured and observed. Was my friend James, who by all accounts was living a successful post-army life up until the day he decided he couldn’t take the pain of what he had been through anymore and took his own life, somehow a necessary sacrifice on this altar of necessary war? Or perhaps my platoon leader, who left his 21-year-old wife and his six-month-old son suddenly alone when his body was torn in half by an improvised explosive device in central Iraq in early 2004? Was his death, and the subsequent damage to his wife and son, somehow a part of the necessity of war?
These are the consequences of war. It is more than an abstraction, and there are real people’s lives and livelihoods at stake. Perhaps you’ve had the priviledge of not having it hit so close to home, but please don’t trivialize it or reduce it to a patriotic plattitude (us versu them) or philosophical equivocation (the lesser of two evils).
Hi Luke –
Thanks for your response… being open and vulnerable. I’m not pretending to know exactly what you’ve been through or pretend to have an all-knowing grasp of complex international problems. My only argument is that ALL life is indeed precious… which why we are sometimes forced to fight for it. I have indeed witnessed the sacrifices of our brave soldiers and I can’t pretend to be unmoved by it, nor am I unshaken by the fatalities of those who are not Americans… I believe that their lives ARE so precious, and I wish that their own people felt as strongly about that as it seems so many Americans do. We are not perfect and war is ugly and horrible no matter what the reason we engage – certainly our military might is a blunt instrument that should not be used lightly.
But don’t we have to take the good with the bad? It feels odd to label myself as “pro-war” I really wish that war was avoidable and I do think that we should NEVER engage lightly as in philosophical debate when there are real lives at risk – but it seems that “anti-war” debaters seem only willing to talk about the instances of horror and never those moments of true justice and healing. We live in a broken world and I am not pretending to be immune to that… I just hold that sometimes evil is real and we are called to be a FORCE for good instead of rolling over in evil’s wake.
Thank you again for sharing…. please hear that my heart is not callous and I am not interested in platitudes… sorry that I came across as harsh or trivial simply because I hold a different view.
Hi Dani –
Curious what you mean by this:
“…nor am I unshaken by the fatalities of those who are not Americans… I believe that their lives ARE so precious, and I wish that their own people felt as strongly about that as it seems so many Americans do.”
I don’t want to reply and misunderstand you, but it sounds as though you’re saying Iraqi and Afghan people don’t value life like we do? I have a feeling they’d disagree with you on that one.
And to this:
“war is ugly and horrible no matter what the reason we engage”
I agree – and I would suggest that Jesus wouldn’t ever call us to do things that are ugly and horrible. There is a reason the New Covenant was and is so freeing. There is not one place in the New Testament where believers are called to be a violent force. On the contrary, the disciples and the church of Acts faced the most brutal of persecution, and shared a message of dying to self, and never about saving one’s fleshly body. The evil we are to be a force against is not flesh and blood evil – how can I pray for and love my enemy if I’m killing him (or asking someone else to do it for me)?
Hi Arianne –
For some reason I can’t reply on your comment so I hope that you can still see this response.
I can see how to you could have misconstrued my words, so let me be clear (to steal an “Obama-ism”
) I’m not trying to make any kind of statement about individual Iraqi or Afghan families and their appreciation of life or lack thereof. Goodness knows that many Americans do not hold the same values on life that I do, and I am not going to attempt in any way to decipher their motives or make assumptions about their beliefs.
What I was referring to (perhaps too flippantly) was the 12 years of “peace” in Iraq that cost tens of thousands of lives at the hands of Saddam Hussein. For the time of his power, estimates range from 250,000 to over 1,000,000 dead through torture, execution, mass murder, and genocide – not even counting all the Iraqis that died in his war against Iran, estimate at a million. Even at the lower estimates, that is 8,500 per year. 164 per week. This is during the “peace” over the 12 years since the first Gulf war, before we entered Iraq post-9/11. While I don’t have specific numbers at my fingertips, I know that the Taliban’s reign over Afghanistan was also bloody and brutal for its people.
Do not misunderstand. I am grieved by this. I am even more grieved that we might have had a hand in even more deaths because of our involvement after 9/11. BUT, I think that Iraq and Afghanistan are both better off for our help, and I do not think that Jesus would have us sit idly by while evil rampages freely, whether we are protecting our lives and homeland or someone else’s. In this case, I believe that we were attempting to do both. Plus, it’s unfair to only point out the bad while refusing to notice the good – America has poured billions into both countries in an effort to help stabilize and protect their people and government – if we were really such a bloodthirsty empire, I don’t think that would happen. http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
I don’t think we are faultless and I’m certainly not complacent about the sacrifices made. I think it is possible to pray for our enemies and also stand for justice… walking the delicate line of “doing justly and loving mercy”.
Interesting perspective, Dani. I am a pacifist (an uneasy one, some days!) but I believe and practice and yearn for justice so I would still feel very comfortable with your label “pro-justice.” I just don’t think that pro-justice necessarily equals war or capital punishment. I believe that we can have justice without further loss of life in terms of punishment for evil-doers. I am pro-life as well but I, like Nish here, would love to see that phrase expanded to include a consistent ethic encompassing all of life – not just the innocent or the ones that “deserve” it. I suppose I struggle with both of them as you’ve defined them: Pro-life only for anti-abortionists and pro-justice only for those that advocate capital punishment or just war doctrines. What do you think?
Hi Sarah!
Thanks for lending your voice to the fray. I get it, I really do – labels are tricky things and often fail to encompass one’s nuanced views… hence why I got carried away and wrote a lengthy blog on this topic.
I actually don’t wish to hold the terms “pro-life” and “pro-justice” hostage… both can mean different things (“justice” is different for a teenager who steals a candy bar than for a child molester, for example,) and I think a pro-life stance requires a bit of dialogue to work out, as we’ve discovered.
However, hypothetically, if my child was bullied repeatedly and I tried talking to the bully’s mom, telling my child to walk away, etc. and nothing worked – I would eventually step in as a force for good. No one is going to repeatedly mistreat my child (or anyone else’s, for that matter) while I stand by and declare that boys will be boys. Does that require physical violence? Probably not, but I was required to use a just, measured amount of force I would, to both dissuade the bully and protect the innocent.
I think we are reluctant to endorse capital punishment or war because it makes us uncomfortable – such a stance reveals painfully that there is true, dark, horrible evil in the world that doesn’t stop unless it is made to with force – and that is a terrifying, uncomfortable and pitiless reality. Even Jesus described the devil as a “lion waiting to devour” and Paul tells us to put on the armor of God and “stand firm”. Of course I am not endorsing vigilante justice or some warped sense of crusade – but when we are faced with real evil – the kind that criminals get the death penalty for – I think we have to choose what’s right for the safety of our society and let God’s grace do the rest.
Thanks for letting me soapbox again! I appreciate you talking about this….
I’m with you 100% here. I have a difficult time understanding the pro-life label when you vote consistently against measures that provide help to those who are already born, or in favor of legislation that allows torture or preemptive war or the death penalty. I cannot accept that these are part of a pro-life ethic. And it breaks my heart that so many seem to feel as though they must choose between on “kind” of pro-life and another “kind” of pro-life.
You know I’m right here with you.
I think it’s safe to say the politicians have no desire in word economy because their entire existence of a job depends on them saying things in such a way that they can lead the most people possible to believe that the politicians are saying what those people want to hear.
It’s on purpose.
I agree with Arianne. You simply aren’t going to see it within the political system (and I include my own political system here in Canada in that statement). Politics are about money and power. They can do good and I do believe in their place in a civil society (universal healthcare for all!) but ultimately it’s about power and money for most politicans. They draw lines and demarcations as code words for certain segments of society. In addition, the media bears a lot of burden in this regard as well. I firmly believe that we’d have a much more civil and better informed society if people turned off their 24 hour cable news hysterics.
In high school, I once said this to a youth sponsor of mine (though not so eloquently, I’m sure!) and was really, really criticized.
From one consistent pro-lifer to another … AMEN. Excellent post.
Great article, Nish. I am in agreement with much of what you’e written here.
The truth is that a consistent pro-life ethic encompasses us all. It covers off many of the priorities of faithful followers of Jesus, committed to the practice of peace and wholeness. Poverty. Elder care. Abortion prevention. Adoption. The end of capital punishment. Nuclear weapons. Healthcare. The poor and oppressed. The immigrant. The wealthy. The fatherless, the widow, the motherless. Creation care. Human trafficking. World hunger.
That is why I love the term pro-life even though historically it’s been meant for the exclusive use of anti-abortion. I usually qualify my statement as holding a “consistent pro-life ethic” meaning from womb to tomb and all the mess in between.
One argument that I am very tired of hearing against my views on this subject is that I’m naive or somehow closing my eyes to justice by being in favour of a consistent pro-life ethic. Choosing life is a consistent biblical theme and I will not deviate from it. It takes guts to choose peace, to choose forgiveness, to choose love, to choose to give space for redemption to happen. Regardless, even if I’m wrong, I’d rather have made the choice on the side of life in all instances.
If you’re naive, then so was Christ, and you’re in the Best of company.
And I agree wholeheartedly on the last point. If we are to err, let us err on the side of love, grace, and acceptance. I can clearly see the harm that could come from beeing too harsh, too judgmental, too punitve; but I have a hard time seeing how being too loving, too graceful and too accepting would end up resulting in the same kind of damage.
Oh, Sarah, that last paragraph is *exactly* where I’m at. Thanks for commenting.
Yes! This. Our words contain power. So important to remember that!
If a concern for word economy exists, then associating abortion-the surgical removal of a little being God created-that Obama supports and celebrates at the latest term possible-is impossible. Abortion is murder. MURDER.
That’s word economy.
Anything else just covers the most important issue of our time with political-jargon and rationalization.
Why did God give the Israelites the land the Canaanites inhabited? Because the Canaanites practiced abortion as a religious sacrifice.
And Perry is against abortion-MURDER of babies.
Belinda, I’m having a hard time understanding your argument. Nobody is suggesting that abortion is is a valid means for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
There’s so much I want to say on this subject, I fear my response will cloud over my heart. I’ve had this window open all day and several times, I’ve started typing only to delete all in frustration, but something draws me back. So I share a piece of my thinking in the hopes that I add something relevant to the conversation at hand. I wish to address two separate ends of your post and beg forgiveness if they do not overlap in practicality as they do in my head.
I am responsible for someone else’s words. From the mom running for school board to the guy occupying the highest office in the land, to everything in between, I’ve been responsible for their words. I know how to elicit an emotional response; in due honesty, emotional responses are easy. As a crafter, all I have to do is implore a rhetoric device and I’ve got your emotion. With your example- the floating opposite of life and death is an immediate grabber. But my job, every day, is to craft a message for a key figure who is then charged with delivery. For me to be successful, the idea at had needs to be advanced. For my faith, this means my job is to give you some kernel of truth, let it sit with you a while, and have that truth compel or propel you to action. If my pull on your emotions does that, then I have not been true to either the gift of crafting I’ve received from the Almighty or the gift the listener is giving me in their time and their own ability to act without me. The weight of your title “reclaiming our words” is heavy on my soul. Yes, we need to reclaim our words. Politicians (those folks whose words are ever-present and ever-full of meaning) must reclaim their words in a sense. But we, the listener, must reclaim our responsibility to have our first response be reason- not emotion.
Your example (here is where eventually I hope my points overlap) offers that one cannot be both pro-life and pro- the death penalty. On the surface, especially among those who self-identify as evangelical, it appears true that one cannot hold both beliefs. But words are more than just their sounds. They are the culmination of shared experiences, shapers out of nothingness, markers given to man by the Almighty to identity one as different from the other. Words, praise be to God, are fluid things. They take on meaning and a shared history depending upon their use. This is, thankfully, why words like “retarded” and “gay” are removing themselves from our daily usage. The shared experiences of those words are changing, therefore the definitions are changing.
Back to your example. (And I know your example was not the point, but I hope my explanation bleeds into your larger point and mine) I believe you can be both pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. Let me explain. The beginnings of the pro-life movement were shepherded mainly by conservative Catholics. Thankfully, the life movement has taken to most of the other mainline Christian sects. But because its inception was within the Catholic faith, calling it “pro-life” raised no further ethical issues because the Catholic Church teaches that if war is just, it is allowed; if the death penalty is adjudicated from within moral and non-corrupt legal systems, it is allowed (and actually, if the death penalty is administered to one who is in the state of mortal grace, the act of withstanding the penalty of death wipes out the price of purgatory). The shared experience of the phrase “pro-life” didn’t take on its current questionable meaning until the movement was embraced by those outside the Catholic faith. So for one who has embraced the early pro-life movement (which the politician in your example did), these things are not ill-designed against one another.
Words matter a great deal. But reason should be our initial response. Not that we should give a pass to those things about which we disagree. Upon hearing that a politician is pro-life, we should evaluate what that means from a total and complete history of the word. Your point in your post is good- we must reclaim the words we use. We must understand that we speak through the label “Christian.” But that does not diminish our responsibility to reclaim what we hear as listeners and doers of the word. Words aren’t their face value. Neither are the politicians that use them. As I go about my day-to-day job of crafting a message on behalf of politicians, I can from time to time become frustrated at the burden placed solely on the giver of the message. The listeners want 45 min explanations in 140 characters, but the listeners often do not have the background of the issue to condense the matter effectively. This is not to say the listener isn’t intelligent, but it is to say that what we hear is what we’ve demanded that we hear.
Your post lists a wonderful grouping of things we should recognize that when debated, carry a great magnitude: economics, the Eucharist, politics, and parenting. I could not agree more. But to do this effectively, we must understand every piece and part of the issue at hand, or we risk an emotional, instant summarization that can be malicious to be the listener and the speaker. And I fear, as much as I love social media, this cannot be done in 140 characters.
Ashley – This was beautiful. I could completely hear your heart and I completely agree. You did a far more nuanced job of contemplating this issue than I did and I left and wrote a whole blog about it!
http://www.cuteconservative.com/blog/2011/09/01/can-you-be-pro-life-and-pro-war-or-death-penalty/
Thanks for sharing your story.
Nish – I am slow clapping you right now.
I’m pro-life….all life. At the end of the day all I can think of is, who am I to judge. Unborn children, rapists, murderers. It’s not my right to judge who lives and who dies…only He can. The end.
Wow. I <3 this discussion times a million! It's not one that I often get the opportunity to enter into–unless it's a conversation with both sides hearing one another and sharing deeply (which I think is genuinely happening here!), it makes me feel an awful lot like a clanging, loveless cymbal.
I hate that these have become political issues. Life is precious and sacred. Even those who commit the most heinous crimes are animated by the very breath of God. And, when we look more closely into the lives of those who do things that make our skin crawl and make us lock our doors at night, we find they all have deeper stories, too. I think death is horrific in all its hideous forms and I love the notion that the term "pro-life" should be all-encompassing.
I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances–I believe that redemption is possible for the darkest soul. Sure, God could save them any way and at any time He chooses, I find it abhorrent to think that we can be sure enough of the motives of another's heart and actions (that we weren't there to witness) that we can deal out death. This is simple to me because it's completely possible to separate somebody from a victim pool without separating them from life.
War is harder for me. I hate it–even the idea of that final battle makes me feel sick because I know people will be separated from life, both temporal and eternal. There's no joy in that thought for me, just the longing for the day when everything is as it was originally intended. If we want to call it a "necessary evil," we need to reconsider our word economy: does "necessary" mean justifiable? I've heard the term used in a way that would even suggest "necessary" really means praiseworthy.
IMO, "inevitable evil" would be a better term. Until the day there is no more war or pain or sorrow, we will have war. People will hurt each other. This ugly reality makes the issue so much more complex. I would never want to be the one who has to weigh the costs of leading a nation into war–I can't imagine that I could ever say yes and live with the thought of the lives I would be destroying. But what about the thought of lives being destroyed in genocide? What about the Holocaust? Was there any other way to stop the slaughter of millions of Jews without force? I'm not saying I support wars or that there are even just wars. The very existence of war proves the world is insanely unjust. I'm just saying I don't know how the rubber meets the road in this broken world.
Sorry for writing a novel, but, like I said, it's not often I get the opportunity to talk about this. Thank you all for being brave enough to share and loving enough to be kind <3
Patriotism vs Pacifism
C. S. Lewis said this on the subject in his famous Screwtape Letters “all extremes, except for extreme devotion to the Enemy, are to be encouraged”(1) So we must be careful when labeling ourselves things such as pro-war anti-war. To strictly call ourselves as christian anti-war/ anti-death and to strictly adhere to that is, I feel, a grievous error. In doing so you cast aside one of God’s greatest gifts, our ability to reason and therefore our ability to make decisions. War and the punishment of criminals and war is one of those things that is a gray area in the Bible, where God leaves us to make a decision based on our careful study of His word and prayer on the subject. If you were to say “who am I to judge” I would say that Hopefully you are a Christian and as such will not neglect your duties as such and make based off the teachings that God has given us. Do not forget that the Israelites had judges ultimately appointed by God and they judged both firmly and wisely. If you say that it is unfair to use the Old Testament as examples, then let me bring to your attention that God was also more physically present then. He guided people with pillars of fire, he laid down the law to man by quite literally writing it down for him on tablets and giving them to Moses! If God saw the need to appoint Judges who would rule over and make judgements when He was more physically present then how much more important are those judges today when He has moved His presence to something that is within a Christian and that influences a Christians life in such a way that he (the christian) can make important life decisions and function. To say “who am I to judge and take a life?” I might say this…
“True who are you to take a life? But why stop there? Who are you to arrest someone? If you are not going to make a judgment because you lack the status of God then don’t even arrest them. And if you are not going to arrest them what is the point of having laws? Why delineate between right of wrong if you are not going to act on the crossing of the line? If you are going to ask the question “who am I to judge” and actually follow the line of reasoning on which you are basing your argument you will end up with no order at all which is a sin, for God is the God of order not of disorder. If you do not see your line of reasoning through then you tip your hat that you are showing no faith in God, you don’t feel He has given you enough teaching and instruction in His word to make truly just judgement based off his word and your conscious, nor Has He given you enough conviction to see your line of reasoning through.”
Well said, Jordan! I was thinking this over this weekend and I began to go down this same road… you fleshed it out well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Wow, Nish – you have invited an amazing discussion in this place. Thank you for your clarity and ‘economy,’ and thank you for speaking your heart…through your very careful thinking self. These are huge issues and it is clear that many followers of Jesus are NOT going to agree about them.
I am with you, and so many others who have written in support of your position. I am most particularly with you in regard to the death penalty – which to my mind and heart is a very imperfect vehicle for meting out any kind of justice. There simply are NO perfect policemen/judges/juries in this world and dreadful mistakes have been and will continue to be made. On that basis alone, I am chary of death penalty sentences…there is too much room for error.
But beyond that, and more in line with the arguments you and others have put forth here, to declare ourselves ‘in favor’ of the death penalty as followers of the One who was a victim of such a sentence – and whose self-chosen, sacrificial death was meant, among many other wonderful things, to showcase how low the human race had sunk – well, it seems short-sighted at best, and ghoulish at worst. Yes, there are people who commit crimes that are heinous beyond belief. And yes, my gut instinct is to run them through and through and eliminate them from the earth.
But my gut instinct is the very thing Jesus came to redeem, it seems to me. And the move from Old Testament to New includes the move from one kind of thinking about justice to a new one as well. The ‘eye for an eye’ justice spelled out in the Torah was actually a step UP into the arena of mercy for its time. DEATH was the customary response for any perceived crime in the ancient near east. So stepping back from death to an eye was a move towards mercy … and justice, too. Jesus takes that move to its beautiful best and the earliest followers of our Savior lived that out in ways that often make me ashamed of bearing the name Christian in the 21st century. Many of them were themselves victims of the death penalty and before they were mauled by lions, run over by thundering chariots, tortured to death before cheering, laughing crowds – these same saints cared for the sick, shared their belongings in common, offered grace to their neighbors and lived the gospel daily. They had found a new worldview after meeting Jesus – and it was markedly different from that of the surrounding culture.
What I read between the lines in so many of these comments is the reality that most of us – and I most definitely include myself here – do NOT have a worldview that is markedly different from the surrounding culture, at least on this issue. Your lovely post is a call to re-examine what we believe and why we believe it, and part of that call is to look hard at where our beliefs and the actions they propel line up with the life of Jesus and where they line up with the assumptions of the world we live in. Thank you for that, as well as for so many wonderful words shared here and elsewhere. We need to think more deeply and you invite us to do exactly that.
Enjoying this discussion a lot, Nish. Thanks for wading into it!
As a writer, and a person who (like you) takes God’s Word very seriously, I appreciate what you shared about the importance of words. And I agree with you when it comes to the tragedy of polarization created by terms such as “pro-life” or “pro-choice” (or their callously coined antonyms, “anti-choice” or “pro-death”).
Yet I am concerned when in our rush to reject such polarization we actually end up doing two things: 1) Minimize the moral foundations of crucial issues related to the sanctity of human life and the mandates of justice. And 2) Minimize or “write off” those who take positions which are scripturally defensible, but which we disagree with. To wit:
You seem to shrug off any opposition to abortion (a cruel and brutal assault on a defenseless child made in the image of God) as if it’s hypocritical UNLESS such a person also toes a progressive line when it comes to capital punishment and war. But isn’t this the exact kind of “bundling of issues” we find so frustrating in those who oppose our viewpoint? So are you saying then that the moral evil of abortion should be tolerated simply because you disagree with other positions that Christians who say they are called to oppose it might hold?
I have strong convictions on the right to life for unborn children (that’s a no-brainer, in my opinion, if you take the Bible seriously at all). Personally, I find myself undecided when it comes to capital punishment. But even though I am undecided, I recognize there are strong biblically-based arguments on both sides of this issue. I understand that a committed and sincere Christian can certainly make a biblical case FOR capital punishment, based on the following clear scriptural principles:
!) God has ultimate authority over life and death.
2) In the Old Testament, God delegates that authority to the nation of Israel to exact capital punishment for certain terrible crimes. He likewise delegates authority to make war (at His command) in order to prevent or avenge injustice.
3) By extension (and by examining passages such as Romans 13) one can certainly argue that He has also delegated such authority to other legitimately established nation-states as well.
This position may not fit a liberal worldview, but you can’t deny that there is scriptural support for it. (I also don’t deny that you can legitimately argue AGAINST capital punishment from other principles found in Scripture! I don’t think this issue is quite so cut-and-dried as abortion.)
The issue of war is very similar. I don’t know of any social conservative who rejoices in the idea or the reality of war or nuclear weapons. Yet St. Augustine, no theological slacker he, put forth the “Just War” principle to try and resolve this tension. Fundamentally he said that the use of force or the threat of force was justified under certain conditions necessary to self-defense or the defense of the state, when executed by the state.
If you don’t believe this, then let me do a little bundling of my own. In order to be consistent, you also have to hold that it is immoral for us to arm our police forces, and that we should forbid them to use any force even if necessary to save innocent lives. Is that what you believe?
The fact of the matter is that it is no longer “PC” among many in the newer generation of Christians to take stands which they feel have been tainted by the abuses of the “Christian right.” It’s much more PC (at least right now) to devote yourself to issues like poverty alleviation.
I’m all for poverty alleviation (I’ve devoted my career to it, in fact). But I hope you see my point. What I’m arguing for here is a little bit of tolerance, I guess! Please don’t “write off” other Christians you disagree with when it comes to issues like capital punishment and war. And don’t sacrifice biblical imperative simply to “wash your hands” of those who have been tainted by political positions no longer in vogue.
God is much bigger than such politics.