I just read yet another article by Al Mohler on abortion, and I always notice the glaring omission of how war is no different…..mainly because the “pro-lifers” do not even make the connection. They rail against the immorality of abortion (and I agree on most points…I don’t accept abortion as morally feasible in a great majority of cases) , but they fail to extend these feelings of outrage and “desire to protect life” to the arena of the war question, and to its morality, because their Christian ethic has been co-opted (usually “distorted”) by allowing the “Christian nation” idea to shield them from the immoralities performed by their military leaders. After all, the commander in chief claims to be a Christian, and he supports all the “right causes”, so he must be, and so Christians are called to give them a blank check. I don’t think so.
They allow the separation to happen because that fits their “political agenda”. It’s a system of “control” used for centuries by “Empires” to garner support for their systems. Patriotism is mixed with theology, and used to forge a more “furious” loyalty, having it mixed with such “rigteousness”. What results is a lethal moral blindness that turns a blind eye to the horrors of war brought upon thousands of innocents, all for the sake of “defending” against some theoretical “if-then” scenarios that are totally conjecture. Real lives, sure to be snuffed out, for the sake of protecting US from the “motives” we project upon those identified as “enemy”.
My point is always that these people are emphatically NOT pro-life. If you are only so when it “fits” and it suits you, then you are NOT. A “Pro-life” ethic requires a broad view and reverenece for life, whcih is not swayed by national allegiances; pro-life is a view held by a citizen of the world; of humanity; of Christ-like morals. Anything else is “non-Christlike”.
I am curious about the specifics of your pro-life position. Do you believe that all abortion and all war is wrong? Or some abortions and some wars are wrong? Or something else?
I’d say just about all of both are wrong….there would be very few instances where I would or could justify either. In either case, much , much fewer than many American Christians are willing to justify on the latter, just as many of the pro-lifers don’t give much ground on the first one.
Hi Dale–
Funny, I’ve been thinking about the same issues lately. I remember discussing the 2000 election with my mother-in-law. She said she was interested in voting purely on “moral issues”–mostly referring to abortion, but there was also the issue of Clinton’s moral character and the general mix of Focus on the Family rallying points: prayer in school, euthanasia, etc.
I agreed with her. I still agree with her, but the situation is a bit more complex for me now. It occurred to me the other day that unjustified war is a moral issue. As is care and concern for the environment. So also are the issues of corporate crime and vested interests. After these four years of the Bush administration, I find myself asking if there’s even a candidate out there for me to trust?
Is there someone–anyone–who supports the holistic pro-life stance that you’re alluding to? Bush described that he wanted to make America a “culture of life.” That sounded great, but what about the lives of the Iraqis that suffered from our bombings? What about having a life that’s free from the long shadows of monopolistic corporate powers? Or a life that can be enjoyed with conservative care for the world we live in?
I agree that we may have to rethink this idea of America as a Christian nation–the Christian Right is neither, as it were. I wonder if we sometimes get so caught up in this heady narrative that we lose sight of caring for those in need. Are we simply being naive?
Wow, Ken, thanks for the comments. The three things that you ask about Bush’s promise of a “culture of life”:
1- what about the lives of the Iraqis that suffered from our bombings?
2-What about having a life that’s free from the long shadows of monopolistic corporate powers? 3 – Or a life that can be enjoyed with conservative care for the world we live in?
Those three things represent forme the three-headed monster of the Bush regime, and an unholy trinity it is, too. And these are the three things that Bush’s popularity depend, so I have grave doubts as to the ability or willingness of the Bush people to experience any kind of repentance or “slacking off” in those areas.
I would say that people like Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, and Tony Campolo, a widely known evangelical who is largely responsible for my own melding of sociology and theology into a “justice-oreiented” Biblical message — these three come to mind when I think about people who have influenced me and helped me think about a consistently pro-life stance. It also seems that I have heard from some people who come from some of the Anabaptist traditions such as the Mennonites that teach this across the board pro-life as a matter of tradition. ( I also just did a Google on “consistent pro-life”, which finds a lot of articles talking about various political candidates “standing fast” and being consistent in their “anti-abortion” votes, but only a few hits on people talking about the “inconsistency of claiming to be pro-life and then also being pro-capital punishment (like the Southern Baptists) , pro-war (like the Southern Baptists) or anti-environmenatl protection (like the Southern Baptists)…..and that goes for not just Southern Baptists, but the majority of conservative Christendom (amny of whom, if they had been, at minimum, at least exposed to both sides of the arguments over ethical issues surrounding these issues, would result in a more unified outcry from Churches in general (and not just those darn “liberal churches”).
But such is not the case. The same kind of disinformation circulated by the Bush campaign against Iraq and pushing for pre-emptive strike is also practiced by the Churches who wish to join forces with the powerful and create a coalition that basically melds their own empire with the government, and works very hard to keep that unholy alliance under the veil of unquestioned authority. Right-wing conservatives may scoff at the use of “unholy”, but they remain blind to the all too real impact that their complicity allows to happen, under the guise of “Christian nation”, in its impact upon others , usually far away from our “American way of life”. But also, they choose to dismiss the impacts that DO affect our “American Way of Life” that is denied many of those who are American, but these “least of these” are “segregated” and “out of view” in our own little “ghetto/foreign lands” that “contain” these undesirables behind social and political barriers.
A link I did find that explores some of the various “consistency issues” in claiming “pro-life” status is here